You are on page 1of 12

Van Vors 1

Payton Van Vors


Business Ethics
Professor Ciapalo
8 December 2016
Case Study Analysis Paper: Museum of Springfield
In this case study paper, I shall argue that it is morally acceptable for Paul Georgakis to
order Roger Chilton to remove the disturbing images and stories from the Museum of
Springfields exhibit. An employee becomes a representative of a business when they are hired
and with this position, comes different responsibilities. When hired to complete a task, it may not
always be what an individual employee prefers or deems most effective, but to judge that may or
may not be what he or she was hired to do. Paul acts as the media coordinator for the museum.
Newly hired to help jumpstart his career and business for the museum, Paul has high
expectations being placed on him. Roger was hired as the content expert for a new exhibit. Other
individuals necessary to consider in determining the morality of this study are Mary Weston,
Pauls boss; Elaine Dorsch, site designer; and Julia Winger, the corporate liaison with
Midwestern Industries. Midwestern Industries is underwriting the exhibits expenses in hopes to
bring business to the museum as well as to gain more corporate support. Through the evaluation
of the five moral standards along with interpersonal communication evidence, I believe Pauls
orders to remove the offensive exhibit content is morally acceptable.
The first moral standard that can be used to further explain why Paul is acting in a
morally acceptable manner is utilitarianism. Using the utilitarianism theory, an action is morally
correct if the sum total benefits produced by that action/policy is greater than the sum total
benefits produced by any other action that could have been performed in its place. We believe the

Van Vors 2
costs of allowing the disturbing images and stories to remain in the exhibit is much larger than
the alternative. The alternative simply requires regathering and finding alternative ways to still
present the information in the most beneficial, appealing manner. Allowing the offensive and
disturbing content would create a variety of costs. First, there would be an actual monetary cost.
Midwestern Industries has allotted the museum several hundred thousands of dollars to create the
exhibit to provide a positive consumer experience within both the museum and Midwestern. A
satisfying relationship requires investment, commitment, trust, and comfort (Woods 2015). If
Midwestern continues to view the exhibit with displeasure, they may choose to withdraw their
financial support for the museum because their relationship with the museum is not being
upheld. If Midwestern was not approving of the content, they would lose trust in the museum
therefore feeling a lack of commitment and a loss of comfort. Also, because the content is
already deemed disturbing, it is a possibility that the exhibit will offend viewers. This could
result in potential financial troubles. In addition, continuing to invest time and money into the
creation of an exhibit that will likely have to be removed, either by Paul or those with more
authority than him, is a waste of money. While there is no mention of a deadline quickly
approaching, it would be wise to revise the content and images now, versus continuing to let
Roger and the designer continue to work on a project that the employers may not approve.
On the other hand, utilitarianism theory can be used to support certain elements of the
opposing opinion. Communication climate is defined as the overall feeling or emotional mood
between people that is shaped by verbal and nonverbal interaction (Woods 2015). In this case, a
negative communication climate can result in a domino-effect of negative results. With this, it
could be argued that Paul and Julias criticism may result in Roger feeling unwanted and
unappreciated and consequentially leaving his duties. Although this is one cost, this would result

Van Vors 3
in a waste of time and money for Paul, Mary, Elaine, and Julia. Also, they would have to put
more time and money in replacing Paul as well as revising the content. The entire project would
have to be stalled which would impact all parties involved as well as eager visitors of the exhibit.
All of these potential costs could be argued to support the morality behind Paul keeping the
offensive images and content as is.
If Paul presented the information using the correct communication steps, Roger could
listen effectively and realize that Pauls criticism is not personal. For example, listening is
defined as the active, complex process that consists of being mindful, physically receiving
messages, selecting and organizing messages, interpreting messages, responding, and
remembering (Woods 2015). In this, mindfulness and being fully present in the moment is a key
component. If Paul conveys the message effectively, Roger should also be capable of interpreting
the true intention, thus avoiding any hard feelings within Roger. In addition, the reputations of all
the individuals involved, the museum, and Midwestern Industries could be tarnished. If viewers
of the exhibit from the community react negatively, it will be reflected on all those involved.
Pauls potential career would likely be diminished or at least delayed as the success of this
exhibit was anticipated to launch him into success. Mary, Pauls boss, would also receive a
negative influence because she entrusted Paul to do whatever necessary to make the exhibit
effective. If the disturbing images created a large enough negative impact, firing may occur.
Termination would create a loss of livelihood for Paul, Mary, Roger, Elaine, and Julia along with
lowering their ability to provide for themselves and their families. These are just a few of the
costs we believe would be created if Paul were to allow the disturbing images to remain.
Rights theory is supported through the right to security of the person, right to work,
freedom of expression, and freedom of thought. The rights theory says an action/policy is

Van Vors 4
morally acceptable if it respects the natural rights of human beings. The right to security of the
person along with the right to work supports Pauls decision in taking down the offensive
content. The success of the exhibit determines Pauls income and financial security, therefore he
has a right to work in a way that protects his security. Although all members of the project have
the right to work, the terms and conditions of the work being done varies. Paul is not violating
the right to work for Roger, rather he is asking for him to continue utilizing Rogers right to work
by creating alternative content. Interpretation of these rights in relation to this moral dilemma is
necessary to evaluate. Interpretation is the subjective process of explaining our perceptions in
ways that make sense to us (Woods 2015). If Roger is able to interpret that there is no violation
of his freedom to work, conflict may be resolved.
In contrast, a violation of adequate working conditions and right to education could be
argued for allowing Roger to continue working on the current exhibit content. Interpersonal
conflict exists when there is expressed tension between people who are interdependent, perceive
they have incompatible goals, and feel a need to resolve those differences (Woods 2015).
Through this definition, it can be suggested that there are definitely forms of interpersonal
conflict occurring within the Museum of Springfield. Roger may feel passive aggression or
games being played towards his work. Passive aggression is identified as denying the feeling of
aggression while acting aggressively and games are highly patterned interactions in which the
real conflict is hidden or denied by a counterfeit excuse (Woods 2015). It may be argued that
Paul communicating the displeasure in Rogers efforts may create an uncomfortable and
unwanted feeling for Roger within his workplace. Roger may not feel like he is able to freely
express and communicate the message as well as his intent. He may take offense to the criticism
of his work and feel unacknowledged and unappreciated which could be an example of

Van Vors 5
inadequate working conditions. Also, the argument may be made that certain parts of history are
offensive and need to be presented in such a way in order to provide the most authenticity.
People have the right to education and the offensive content may inform them of critical
information about their community. Changing the delivery of the content may withhold a certain
aspect of the right to education.
On the other hand, freedom of expression can be argued to be lost if Paul allows the
content to remain. Although Elaine has the right to create a design, when she is hired to represent
a company or business, it is no longer solely about her individual preference. Instead, it is most
important to do what is best to represent the company as a whole. For freedom of thought, Paul
has both the right and obligation to critically think about the product, also known as the exhibit.
Because he is in charge of the overall creation, Paul needs to think and act upon decisions that
best accomplish the overall goals of the project which are to increase the museums reputation, to
help Midwestern Industries, and to provide the museum visitors with a pleasant experience.
Upon acknowledging the presence of interpersonal conflict, it is also important to note that
different orientations to conflict can support Paul ordering Roger to remove the content. Roger is
viewing changes being made to the exhibit as a win-lose. This means that there is an assumption
that only one person can win at the expense of another (Woods 2015). However, if Roger were to
look at the situation in the perspective of a win-win, all conflict may disappear.
The justice theory can also be evaluated in determining the morality behind removing the
offensive images. The justice theory deems an action/policy morally correct if it involves treating
similarly individuals who are similar in relevant respects, and dissimilarly individuals who are
dissimilar in relevant respects, in proportion to their dissimilarity. In this case, Paul is not treating
any of the project team members differently. Roger is the content expert, which is why Paul is

Van Vors 6
asking Roger to remove the offensive images and stories. Therefore, Paul is treating everyone
similarly within their job role and expectation. All are employed by the museum, all have
different roles, but there is no mention of Paul mistreating or having bias for any particular team
member. In regards to the exhibit itself, changing the content of the exhibit is not causing anyone
harm at all, nevertheless dissimilar harm.
Dissimilarly, justice theory could support the opposite of my moral judgment. For
example, it is noted that Paul wants to tell Roger to fix the content of the exhibit. However, it
does not mention Paul doing to Elaine, who is in charge of the design. One could argue that
Roger and Elaine are similar in job requirements and responsibilities, yet Paul is treating them
differently. In addition, Elaine mentioned the suggestion was taken as an assault to her artistic
talent. The job description and hierarchy of command is not addressed; therefore, the positions
and level of importance can be viewed as arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract. Arbitrary is defined
as when words are not intrinsically connected to what they represent. Ambiguous is when words
are not clear-cut. Abstract is when words are not concrete or tangible (Woods 2015). Although
symbols may lead to Roger having more authority, this is never stated. Justice theory could also
support keeping the current exhibit by viewing Julia and Roger as similar. Julia may be using her
monetary involvement as a way to create leverage between the importances of her needs being
met compared to Rogers needs.
While this may be true, it can be argued that there are differences between both
comparisons. Although Elaine does contribute to the exhibit, Roger acts as the content expert,
therefore leading what Elaine is to design. Because of the dependency of Elaines job on Rogers
input, it seems Roger has a larger responsibility which would be why Paul addressed Roger over
Elaine. When Elaine takes offense of the email, she may be experiencing an obstacle to mindful

Van Vors 7
listening. Nowhere in the study does it say Paul and Julia attacked or belittled Elaines work, yet
Elaine reacts defensively to the suggestion of change. Prejudgment is when an individual denies
the speaker their own voices (Woods 2015). This could be occurring as Elaine already had a
defensive attitude towards her work and she did not take into account how the situation was
really addressed. This is also known as defensive listening, which is perceiving personal attacks,
criticism, or hostility in communication (Woods 2015). Also, it should be noted that Julia did not
directly threaten to withdraw support from Midwestern Industries. Rather, she expressed
displeasure in the current content. Because of Julias relationship and obligations with the
museum, she has right to provide input. Overall, removing the images and content that have
already been classified as offensive by viewers looks out for the overall well-being of the
customers, Paul, the museum, and Midwestern Industries.
Pauls actions to remove the exhibits content is also morally correct through the
evaluation of the care theory. Care theory states an action/policy is morally correct if it is
consistent with the obligations that flow naturally from the concrete relationship between the
person doing the action/establishing the policy and those with whom he/she is most closely
related. In order to get a thorough sense of care theory, relationships between those involved in
the museums exhibit and the obligations that lie within those relationships should be assessed.
First, Paul and Mary have obligations to one another. As hired by Mary, Paul is expected to
complete the task Mary has assigned. Specifically, Paul is to complete a job that best represents
the Museum of Springfield and its partners. Mary and Paul are aware that he was given an
opportunity to excel in his career, but both Paul and Mary need to be successful in order for the
other to me. Mary gave Paul a chance, now Paul must help Mary in return. Relationship rules are
the unspoken understandings that regulate how people interact (Woods 2015). The obligations

Van Vors 8
within these relationships help form the rules that are expected to be followed by both parties
involved.
Another important relationship is between Paul and Julia. Julia, the corporate liaison is
counting on the success of the exhibit to receive more corporate support. Paul is counting on
Julia to continue helping Midwestern Industries underwrite the exhibit. Therefore, Paul is
obligated to fulfil his side of the partnership between the museum and Midwestern Industries.
Also, the relationship between the museum and Midwestern Industries is a mutually beneficial
partnership because both look to advance each others businesses as well as their own.
On the other hand, the opposing moral judgment can be supported by looking at the
relationship of all creators of the exhibit and its viewers using care theory. Paul, Mary, Roger,
Elaine, and Julia have the responsibility to museum guests to present history accurately.
Although certain aspects of history may appear offensive, they may hold crucial importance in
the timeline of the area. Therefore, restricting Roger from presenting history unaltered forces him
to violate his and the museums obligation to visitors. Roger may also be concerned with how his
face is perceived. Face is the impression of self we want others to accept when we are interacting
in social situations (Woods 2015). Roger may look to utilize impression management through
preserving the original content. How an individual uses communication to persuade others to
believe the face he or she presents is called impression management (Woods 2015). Roger may
want to be viewed as a serious, honest creator and changing the exhibit may change how people
view his face reputation.
However, the relationship between the museum and the customers is most supportive in
Paul removing the content. For example, people may not be looking to be disturbed or offended
by a museum exhibit. Although some museums may provide offensive content, consumers are

Van Vors 9
aware of the disturbing content beforehand and voluntarily pay for that experience. However,
this is not the case because there is no warning stated and it is not known whether people are
aware of the exhibits offensive intent. It is also very unlikely for the exhibit purposely trying to
create offensive content because Mary, Julia, and Midwestern Industries would not be expressing
concern. In general, the content of the intended exhibit does not go against any personal opinion
of beliefs of the team therefore they need to focus on fulfilling their obligations towards one
another.
Catholic social teaching theory is evaluates whether an action or policy is respectful of,
and guided by the nature of human beings. Certain traits of human beings need to be
acknowledged such as supporting that human beings are communal beings with a transcendent
end, having a fundamental dignity and worth as creatures made in Gods image, attaining certain
natural rights, working to achieve the common good, and being treated with justice. Empathy is
defined as the ability to feel with another what they feel (Woods 2015). This is an important
aspect of Catholic social teaching. In Pauls desire to have the offensive content removed, no
violation of Catholic social teaching occurs. All employees of the exhibit creation are treated as
communal beings with dignity and worth. There is no disregard in the fact that the museums
employees are communal beings with a transcendent end. There is also no violation of justice in
revising the exhibits content. However, if the exhibit kept the original content and offended
viewers, it would violate their dignity and worth. Not once does it say Paul is demanding Roger
be fired for his offensive work. Rather, he is looking to engage in contracting and create new
content. Contracting is defined as building a solution through negotiation and the acceptance of
parts of proposals (Woods 2015). If all members are able to sit down and engage in contracting,
the interpersonal conflict may be resolved.

Van Vors 10
Catholic social teaching can support the opposing moral judgment by acknowledging
violations of certain human dignities and rights. It can be argued that Paul forcing Roger to
remove his work may not be treating Roger with dignity and worth. Roger could feel his
creativity being smothered and his value being demeaned. Hate speech could be argued to be
present towards Roger. Hate speech is defined as language that radically dehumanizes members
of a particular group (Woods 2015). It is possible Roger could feel degraded by changing the
content. It could also be argued that Roger removing the content is not working to achieve the
common good. Again, Roger leaving the project could result in a series of additional struggles
for the project. Removing the content could be argued to be solely in Julia or Pauls benefit
rather than for the benefit of the whole. Self-serving bias is a bias towards ourselves and our own
interests (Woods 2015). Julia and Paul may be most focused on their self-serving bias than the
common good of all involved.
However, removing the offensive content would be working to achieve what is best for
all. Midwestern Industries will receive positive corporate support, the museum will have a
successful exhibit, Paul will have a boost in his career, Mary will receive praise, Roger will be
compensated fairly and acknowledged for the success of the exhibit, and viewers will receive an
informative, positive experience. In order to ensure Catholic social teaching requirements are not
broken, Paul can follow guidelines for improving verbal communication in order to ensure his
orders are received with his intent for the museums best interest in mind. Engaging in dual
perspective, respecting what others say about their thoughts and feelings, and striving for clarity
are some ways to effectively utilize verbal communication (Woods 2015). Paul can engage in
these to avoid any violation of human rights.

Van Vors 11
The Museum of Springfield will have greater success and a better reputation if Paul
orders Roger to remove the offensive exhibit content. Through analyzing the costs and benefits
using the utilitarianism theory, there would be much more negative implications if the offensive
content was not removed. Looking at the care theory and observing the relationships of Paul and
Mary, the museum and Midwestern Industries, and Paul and Roger shows that removing the
content would fulfil all obligations. The rights theory shows the right to security of a person, the
right to work and freedom of expression support Paul ordering the removal of the content.
Revising the content in a non-offensive way will ensure means for all the employees livelihood.
Because Paul is not treating any similar employees in a dissimilar way, the justice theory also
suggests the removal of the content. Elaines work is determined by what Roger deems
appropriate making Roger the appropriate individual for Paul to contact about removing the
offensive images and stories in the exhibit. Lastly, there is no violation of Catholic social
teaching by revising the exhibit. All employees are being treated with dignity and worth and
removing the content would be what is truly best for the common good. Incorporating
suggestions for Paul to best communicate, verbally and nonverbally, how and why he seeks the
exhibit to be revised may help alleviate the conflict of morality. By incorporating relationship
rules, expectations, and impression management I stand confidently in the judgment that it is
moral for Paul to order Roger to remove the offensive stories and images in the Museum of
Springfields new exhibit.

Van Vors 12
Works Cited
Wood, J. (2015) Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters (8h ed.) Boston:
Wadsworth.

You might also like