Elfred Ulysses del Rosario

MS Entrepreneurship
ID No. 11091193

On Confronting Ethical Dillemas

The approach used for each case employs an elaboration of the various ethical concerns

that are both stated and implied in each case. Along the way, it will also highlight certain moral

values that should be recognized as appropriate resolutions to possible conflicts. The importance

of this is to be able to identify and compare possible conflicting values as to which of them bears

more moral weight regarding the decision or the necessary course of action. It is important to

keep in mind that all views have their own foundations of moral appreciation according to

certain values. Some of them do share some of it, but their differences give these views their

distinct character.

CASE 1: Ron Jones

The process of bidding in procurement generally involves advertising a certain product or

service needed by a company. Other companies providing the said goods are encouraged to

participate in the process by providing the terms, specifications, and quotations about their

goods. The company in need would then normally choose the lowest bidder, or the next lowest

bidder should certain requirements on quality or other qualifications are not met. This is done to

ensure that a company in need had considered all possible alternatives as basis for selecting a

supplier to sufficiently provide their need at the most reasonable price and quality, and that no

biased preferences were implemented during procurement.

Because of this, suppliers are obviously competing against each other to secure the

contract. And even though I may not have actively participated in any bidding process, whether

as buyer or supplier, I believe that as competition, it should be governed by a given set of rules
and ethical norms. As we can see in the first case presented, there are several factors that violate

norms of competition and fair play.

In this case Ron Jones, a vice president, received information about a competitor’s

costing that could leverage the company’s chances of securing a contract. However, I do not

think that this information was secured by legal or fair means. It might have been leaked, or an

effort by a third party to sabotage the honesty and the intended purpose of the bidding process. I

think the first important issue that should be dealt with is respecting confidentiality. I think Ron

Jones should recognize the fact that this is a breach in the other company’s confidential costings

and procedures, and it would be unfair if Ron’s company would prepare its bid with information

other than what his company implements on its own. Second, I don’t think its proper to prepare

the company’s bid with the sole purpose of winning the contract. The information acquired

might be helpful, but it may affect the way the terms (and even the quality of the bid) are

prepared, and may be compromised if securing the contract is the utmost priority.

Apparently, Ron is torn between securing the contract either with leverage from dubious

sources or by preparing the bid with utmost honesty and integrity. Either he prioritize securing an

end with unjust means, or stick by the values that he and his company hold to fairly present a bid

that, on the other hand, may or may not secure the contract. Not only is this a matter of securing

the contract, but also as vice president, he should embody just and fair transactions regarding

these procedures to serve as an example for the rest of the employees in the company. It would

also not be healthy for the competition to violate the confidentiality and procedures of the

bidding process. The reason why the bidding is done is to give the suppliers a fair chance to

present their bids to buyers who on the other handed would also have the chance to have equal

and credible access to alternatives and options from suppliers.

CASE 2: Kay Smith

This case can be more understood from the various factors that the manager should take

into consideration for the right course of action, naming at least the following:

1. Kay’s performance

2. Kay’s interest in transferring to promotion.

3. Replacement difficulty from the recent budget cuts

4. An applicant of a boss’s good friend

5. The applicant’s inferior performance

However, there are other also other things that we can imply from the case. First, it is the

job of the manager to ensure the quality and performance of his unit or division, and second, is

the somewhat distant relationship of the manager to the applicant.

Let us begin by taking a brief look at how each of the factors, stated and implied, tend to

pull the manager to different directions to give us a better idea on how to approach the problem.

As a manager, I do recognize and respect Kay’s interest in applying for promotion to another

division. Likewise, I am inclined to think that the new applicant will provide the needed position

for the vacancy, regardless of its performance compared to Kay. Also, I may be giving my boss’s

good friend a favor if I don’t allow Kay to leave. Finally, I am concerned about how I am going

to run my own unit and division in the event that I should allow Kay to leave.

By simply enumerating these factors helps me to decide on which factors I should

consider before I make a decision. Evidently, my relationship to the new applicant is irrelevant.

He may be the son of my boss’s good friend, but I cannot see why that’s the only reason I won’t

allow Kay to leave and thus opening the new job for him. And who am I to judge the applicant’s
inferior performance to Kay? Her superior performance and contribution to that division is not

entirely my basis to just let her leave my division.

I, as a manager, recognize Kay’s intent to transfer, but part of my job is to also ensure the

operations and performance of my division. It is also my job to make Kay understand the

difficulty that will arise if I let her go, and how that can affect the division, and the company as a

whole. However, I do understand and feel sorry for not letting her go, but I will also be mindful

of future opportunities that can help Kay advance in her career, as I would likewise be for other

employees. As a manager, I’m responsible for letting everybody in my division know the current

situation of the whole company, and that our deliverables should be the priority.

By kindly asking Kay to stay, I’m also allowing a vacant position to be occupied without

compromising my own division. The applicant’s performance is inferior, yes, but the needed

position will be occupied. The position occupied by an inferior applicant is better than not having

the job occupied at all. And also, I respect the applicant’s potential to contribute to the company

and not to prejudge solely by his track record as less superior.

This case is a good example of how managers should address the different factors

involved in a decision. I may have hurt Kay’s feelings to a certain extent, but I can’t make hasty

decisions just because my employee wants to get promoted immediately to a new position. If I

allow her to leave, not only will I sacrifice the performance of my division, but I will also

deprive somebody else of the opportunity to be a part of the company. I cannot allow all the

employees in my division have a hard time just because I allowed one person to transfer

somewhere else. I may have made the wrong decision, but I do recognize the fact that we have to

make compromises, and sometimes even sacrifices, if we are to maintain our performance for the

company in which we work. But this does not mean that I do not recognize the possibility for
growth in any of my division’s employees. If opportunity arises at the right time, and with

enough resources to accommodate adjustments, I will even personally refer such opportunities

for my subordinates.

CASE 3: Marty Jose

This case presents two scenarios. Firstly, the decision of Marty to charge the

entertainment/representation expense to a different budget, and secondly the upcoming meeting

with the personnel director upon learning about what Marty did.

For the first one, Marty kept in mind keeping her word. As head representing an initiative

of the company, and as directed by her supervisor, she should “do [her] best and give them (the

local civic and business leaders) every possible support”. I believe that she kept in mind the

image and the reputation of the company to keep her word, especially with this affair to represent

a social development initiative over a dinner meeting. Otherwise, she and the company

represented will suffer a bad reputation from these partners. Add to that the fact that at the time

she made the commitment, no one was yet informed of the elimination of entertainment

expenses. At this point, one alternative is to charge that expense into another budget, even

though she may face consequences later on.

And she did, as in the second scenario. As personnel director, I do recognize that first,

she was not aware of the budget cut when she made her word, and second, that I do understand

that she made a commitment to shoulder the expenses of the dinner meeting prior to the

announcement. I can, however, make her liable for charging the expenses to another budget

without proper procedure. She could have, at least, consulted her supervisor for a proper course

of action as to where to charge the entertainment expenses.

 But this does not mean that it’s a major issue. It may be considered an isolated case. She

was basically ordered to give full support, and I can’t blame her for what she did. For the

initiative of the company, maintaining a healthy relationship and a good image with stakeholders

and partners are crucial to its success. This mishap may be resolved with a warning, and most

importantly become a guide to revising procedures should such instances happen again. As a

director, it’s also my duty to bring this matter to designated committees that are responsible for

drafting procedures for the whole company. This is to provide a useful guide to employees,

especially those dealing with key partners and stakeholders, as to how to address these

circumstances, and inform them of the appropriate procedures.

It is evident in this instance that there seems to be the need to recognize the importance of

Marty’s decision. She is fully aware of the importance of relationships with partners, and yet

when that is jeopardized by a sudden announcement of cost-saving, she maintained composure

and remained true to her word, even though she will be facing interrogations later on. As

personnel director of the company, I also believe that such a mistake of not consulting a superior

about proper procedure is minor compared to a tainted reputation of not keeping one’s word to

others. The former only involves me, Marty, and her superior. We can all easily resolve and

manage to come up with a solution to address this mistake. However, in the latter, we may

indeed be able to follow procedures and protocol, but not keeping one’s word to partners, key

people, and stakeholders outside the organization will cost the company a tainted reputation, and

even the entire company may have a hard time trying to recover from it.