Ethics Personal Differences and Preferences

Ethics Personal differences and preferences can impact organizational ethics because often the leadership of the firm dictates ethics for the remaining employees. For example, the ethical culture at Wisson is in part dictated by the actions of Waters. The preferences of different managers with respect to ethical standards impact both the organization's written ethical code and its ethical norms. Within each part of the organization, the ethics can differ again based on the personal differences and preferences of the unit's manager.

Organizational ethics is heavily influenced by the key personalities within the company. In the example, leadership of Wisson above Waters appears to have allowed a particular culture to unfold in his units, and it is within the context of that culture that the ethical breaches have occurred. The dynamic is not just that Waters lacks ethical standards, it is also that the organization as a whole does not support a strong ethical climate.

Valerie fears for her job while Waters takes bribes -- the culture that would allow that situation is one that is fostered by the ownership, either through indifference or because ownership actively promotes such behavior. The written code of ethics is not enforced with sufficient vigor as to have an impact on the organizational culture, which leaves only the personal preferences of senior managers as the key factor shaping the ethics at Wisson. 2. As the Wisson case demonstrates, policies and procedures do not ensure that ethical standards are met.

What the policies and procedures do is to provide a framework for members of the organization to understand the ethical standards that the organization would like to uphold. Further policies and procedures should reinforce this ethical code. It is important that policies outline the expected norms of behavior first and foremost. The policies are the written manifestation of the corporation's ethical standards. For example, at Wisson the policy against bribery is clear. The role of procedures is to modify behavior in such a way that the policies are successfully met.

The procedures include providing frameworks for enforcement of ethical standards. This includes investigation procedures, whistleblower protections and punishment procedures for guilty parties. At Wisson, the policy against bribery exists but it is not supported by any investigation or enforcement mechanisms. The company therefore has very few methods at its disposal to enforce its desired ethical culture. At best, it can do so in an ad hoc manner. Policies and procedures are a support to the leadership element.

While personal preferences shape organizational ethics on a broad level and provide inspiration to employees to uphold the ethical standards, the policies and procedures are what allow those preferences to become an ingrained component of the organization's ethical culture. The procedures in particular are critical because they have the capacity to specifically alter behavior in the organization. This is critical because the actions of lower-level managers will often trickle through the organization. For example, Valerie considers that she has an ethical dilemma and may choose to ignore the bribery.

This means that Waters is dictated the ethics of the organization. However, procedures such as whistleblower protections and investigative procedures would allow her to transcend her boss' ethical standards and enforce the organization's ethical standards. Conversely, the current lack of procedures may indicate that ownership does not genuinely have ethical standards and that they view the written policy as only for show, not something to be followed-up on with any vigor. 3. Valerie is facing a number of ethical dilemmas. The first one is with respect to the bribery.

In this situation, Waters' activities are clearly against the company's ethical policies and indeed are illegal as well. The dilemma that Valerie faces is that she has relatively little evidence and to report the alleged bribery would place her in a vulnerable position. Valerie must weigh the need to be morally "right" versus her interest in self-preservation and the preservation of her teammates as well.

Valerie owes a duty of care to Wisson that would indicate she should report the bribery, but this bribery appears to have some tacit approval from management -- the organization's culture does not appear to prohibit such activity. Valerie does not, however, have a duty of care to her teammates. If they suffer because she blows the whistle on Waters, that is the responsibility of the organization, which should be working to protect them from the wrongdoer.

Another dilemma that Valerie is facing is with respect to her own personal circumstances. She has two strong motivating reasons to not report the bribery. She could lose her work status in the United States and she would jeopardize her ability to receive her education. She owes herself and her partner a duty of care as well, to place value on her education and her ability to live in Chicago and therefore maintain the relationship.

For Valerie, these considerations are powerful, since Waters' actions do not have the same strong impact on her life as reporting him could. Valerie must determine which duties are most important -- to herself, to her partner, to the company and to her teammates. The teammates would appear to be the least relevant, the company the most relevant. Valerie is acting as in this capacity as a representative of Wisson and should conduct herself on the basis of that position.

She is acting in the best interests of the company, which means she owes herself less duty of care than the company as well. 4. Valerie is in a difficult situation. The ethical code of the company is clear, but Wisson appears to lack the policies and procedures necessary to address this violation of the ethical code. However, she must also consider her personal situation. It is first worth mentioning that she does not owe a duty of care to the remaining employees in the group.

The company is responsible for their well-being if Waters is fired. They are subject to employment at will, and furthermore if the product is continued post-Waters they will be under a new leader. Their lot may improve. However, their lot is not Valerie's concern. Her dilemma concerns the activity of Waters. Valerie is unlikely to be able to continue working for Waters. The environment is already fairly poor, with low morale, so aside from her personal considerations she has no reason to continue at Wisson anyway.

If she does not report the bribery, then she would be doing so simply for personal gain -- the education and her work visa. This means that she have an ethical standard equivalent to that of Waters, who also accepts bribery for personal gain. Valerie therefore cannot choose to ignore the bribery evidence for two reasons. The first is that she her behavior would be as unethical as Waters' and the second is that she owes the company a duty of care.

Valerie is aware of the ethical policy at Wisson. Even in the absence of procedures, the policy remains the moral imperative by which Valerie should act. Although it is not necessary,.