Foxtrot Phone Scandal

Foxtrot Phone Scandal - Case Study
Ethical dilemmas and issues are common in different areas in public and private sectors. These dilemmas and issues are attributable to the emergence of different situations in the work setting. Therefore, addressing these issues is critical toward promoting a suitable work environment and interactions with others. Cooper (2012) states that a decision making model is essential in addressing ethical issues as it helps in moving from a problem to developing a course of action to resolve the issue. An example of an ethical dilemma or issue relates to Foxtrot Phone Scandal. Foxtrot Company comprises nearly one hundred cadets from all four classes in the United States Coast Guard Academy. The company is one of the eight firms that constitute the Corps of Cadets. Cadets in this class at the academy are committed to the values of honor and dedication to duty. The ethical dilemma in this scandal will be analyzed and appropriate course of action developed to address it.
General Statement of the Ethical Dilemma
The case scenario in this company is the misuse of the telephone to place free calls and for personal benefit. This ethical dilemma was brought by changes in one of the company’s area telephone that started to operate differently by permitting users to place free calls.
Key Actors
The key actors in this case are the classmates, friends, first-year cadets, cadets from other company areas, and members of the upper classes. These major actors have different roles in this scenario that can further be described through the table below.
Actor
(#2) Actor Relationship
(#3) Roles
(#4) Values
Classmates
Classmates – U.S. Coast Guard Academy
Students
Honest and incorruptible
Friends
Friends – me
Students
Honest and incorruptible
First-year cadets
First-year cadets – U.S. Coast Guard Academy
Students
Honest, honor and devotion to duty
Members of the upper classes
Members of Upper Classes – U.S. Coast Guard Academy
Students
Honest, honor and devotion to duty
Cadets from other company areas
Cadets from other company areas – Foxtrot Company
Students
Work in other company areas
Honest, honor and devotion to duty
Ailing Roommate
Ailing roommate – U.S. Coast Guard Academy
Student
Honest, honor and devotion to duty
Roles among the Key Actors
Classmates, friends, first-year cadets, members of the upper classes are students at the United States Coast Guard Academy. They are required to uphold the values of honor and devotion to duty as they learn in the academy. As students, their role in the academy involved learning while upholding the institution’s honor code. On the other hand, cadets from other company areas need to incorruptible and honest when serving as members of or working in the company. During this process, they need to execute their duties with honor, honesty and dignity as they remain committed to duty.
Values Surrounding these Relationships
As shown in the table above, the values surrounding the relationships between the key actors relate to general ethical principles and honor code of the respective institutions. The honor code of the United States Coast Guard Academy emphasizes on the values of honor and devotion to duty. Therefore, students, first-year cadets and members of the upper classes are required to commit to these values as they learn or serve in its associated companies. In addition to the values in the academy’s honor code, cadets from other company areas are required to uphold honesty in their work. These values are essential as they are considered or viewed as worthy of their vigilant efforts.
Essential Facts
As evident in the scenario, misuse of Foxtrot Company’s telephone to place free calls and for personal benefit is rampant. Students, first-year cadets, members of the upper classes and cadets from other company areas are seemingly using the telephone for free “pay” calls secretively. As suggested in the name, the telephone calls ought to be paid for rather than free. The situation has been caused by malfunctioning of the phone, which has seemingly changed its operations to become a typical home phone line. Therefore, these key actors are engaging in the practice in a dishonest manner that violates the ethical principles and standards of behavior expected of them by the academy and company. This situation creates an ethical dilemma on whether to use the phone like others, inform the ailing roommate or talk to Foxtrot Company about the telephone malfunction and misuse.
Missing Facts and/or Implied Facts
One of the implied facts in this case is that the company is unaware of the telephone malfunctioning to an extent that it operates as a typical home phone line. Additionally, the company’s management is unaware that these key actors are capitalizing on the malfunction to place free calls and for personal benefit. Secondly, the case does not explicitly state whether the company is eventually charged for the free calls placed by students, cadets, and members of other company areas. This would imply that the key actors are contributing to significant losses on the part of the company as it pays for their telephone calls. The case scenario also implies that these students, cadets and members of other company areas are acting in a dishonest manner that contradicts what is expected of them from an ethical perspective. Finally, details of this case also suggest that informing the ailing roommate regarding the free “pay” telephones would be tantamount to acting in a dishonest manner in relation to the company’s code of ethics/honor. This would make the individual complicit of promoting an unethical practice that violates the honor code of the academy.
Behavioral Issues
Majority of the friends are currently using the company telephones to place free “pay” calls or know that members of the upper classes are involved in a similar practice. While these friends discovered the telephones’ malfunctioning, they are not bothered about it as long as they can still place calls albeit for free. In addition, cadets from other company areas also act the same and continue to use for their personal benefit. These behaviors have seemingly created an organizational culture where people do not take care of company property or items. Students seemingly encourage their friends to engage in the practice since the ailing roommate is certainly going to hear about this soon.
Ethical Issues
The behaviors of these key actors involved in the scenario have generated ethical dilemma and issues as they violate organizational code of ethics, moral principles, and expected standards of behavior. One of the ethical issues evident in the case is honesty and transparency on the part of individuals using the telephone to make free “pay” calls at the expense of the company. Honesty and transparency is a critical issue given that successful public administration functions on the trust of the constituents (Stein, 2019). Foxtrot Company has permitted its members to use the telephones to place free “pay” calls. The company expects these members to act in an honest and transparent manner when using these phones. By failing to inform the company about the malfunctioning of the telephone, these members have acted in a dishonest and secretive way. Secondly, these members violated the firm’s code of ethics, especially the honor code of the academy as their behaviors did not demonstrate honor and commitment to duty. Ondrova (2017) states that ethical behavior in public administration requires officials to be compliance-oriented and risk-averse. These members’ behaviors neither reflect compliance with existing standards nor attempts to averse risks.
Ethical Issues Analyzed
The key actors involved in this case are expected to act as stewards since they were permitted to use telephones on the premise of trust. Through stewardship, public officials ensure that their judgments and performance of their daily activities are based on the best interest of all parties (European Ombudsman, 2012). In this case, their actions did not demonstrate stewardship and responsibilities. Lack of stewardship and responsibility is evident in the fact their actions were detrimental to the overall wellbeing of the company. They adopted behaviors that served their personal interests and benefits at the expense of the company’s interests. Failure to inform the company’s management would essentially encourage the behavior even further. On the other hand, the ailing roommate could be informed as well as notified of actions to be taken in addressing this issue. Additionally, the friend should be encouraged not to engage in the practice in order to safeguard trust and uphold ethical standards and behavior.
Action to be Taken
The roommate should be informed about the free “pay” phones and encouraged not to engage in the practice. After informing the roommate, the company’s management should be notified of the telephone’s malfunctioning.
Possible Consequences of the Action
Notifying the company’s management of the telephone’s current operations would promote honesty on the individual’s part and demonstrate commitment to code of ethics. Individuals who have been using the phone are likely to be embarrassed of their actions and even subjected to disciplinary actions based on company policy. The individual reporting the issue is likely to be viewed as a snitch and lose the trust and loyalty of his friends. Third, this action is likely to prevent the ailing roommate from engaging in an ethical practice. Finally, the company will prevent further losses relating to payment of the telephone calls by addressing the problem.
Ethical Criteria Used to Determine Action
Corporate Ethical Virtues (CEV) Model postulate that organizations explicitly state the kind of ethical behavior expected of managers and employees (Kapstein, 2015). Based on this model, managers and employees are provided with adequate resources at their disposal to fulfill their ethical responsibilities. In this context, members of Foxtrot Company are expected to uphold values of honor and devotion to duty and have adequate resources to do so. Their engagement in this practice does not reflect commitment to these values and desired ethical behavior. As a result, notifying the management of their unethical behavior is demonstration of commitment to the desired ethical behavior. Utilitarian theory emphasizes the significance of individual actions instead of moral values as the premise of behavior (Singh & Mishra, 2018). Individuals need to engage in actions and behavior that promote the greater good for the greater number of all. The unethical behavior by members of this company does not promote the greater good for all parties as it results in organizational losses.
Value Terms
Assessment of the ethical dilemma at Foxtrot Company in relation to the phone scandal entailed the use of some value terms as follows:
Honesty, honor and devotion to duty: 1 in the Relationship Table; 2 in Roles Among Key Actors; 3 in Values Surrounding these Relationships; 4 in Ethical Issues.
Incorruptible: 1 in the Relationship Table.
References
Cooper, T.L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
European Ombudsman. (2012, November 15). Ensuring Ethics in Public Administration: The Role of the Ombudsman. Retrieved June 7, 2020, from https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/speech/en/49379
Kapstein, M. (2015). The Battle for Business Ethics: A Struggle Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 144, 343-361.
Ondrova, D. (2017). Challenges of Modern Public Administration and Ethical Decision-Making. RAP, 3, 255-279.
Singh, A.K. & Mishra, N.K. (2018). Ethical Theory & Business – A Study Based on Utilitarianism and Kantianism. International Journal of Humanities and Social Development Research, 2(1), 97-113.
Stein, C. (2019, January 25). Ethical Considerations in Public Administration. PA Times. Retrieved June 7, 2020, from https://patimes.org/ethical-considerations-in-public-administration/