Personal Can Ethics Get Valerie

¶ … Personal can Ethics get

Valerie is facing an ethical dilemma because she is forced to consider her personal well-being vs. that of the company and other major stakeholders. The performance of the company is struggling as a result of Waters' inept management, so she has an obligation to the shareholders and the other employees to address the situation immediately. Valerie is in a vulnerable position herself, though, if she chooses to become a whistle-blower. She may receive a visa to stay as a student, but only if she can find a way to pay her tuition fees. Valerie has no ethical obligation to Waters at this point.

If I was Valerie, I would take the information to the CEO. The company is suffering as the result of Waters' performance. Moreover, he is breaching the company's code of ethics to suit his own needs. The CEO has a duty to the shareholders as agent to maximize their wealth, and Waters is standing in the way of that happening. The CEO also does not have a specific duty to Waters, who was hired under an old regime.

From a consequentialist perspective, if Valerie withholds this information in order to protect her visa status or to ensure that her education is paid, then she is not behaving any better than Waters -- she is receiving a benefit for her role in this bribery. From a utilitarian perspective, Valerie will benefit the employees, the shareholders and the other perfume companies from blowing the whistle -- thus meeting the principle of providing the greatest good for the greatest number. Taking a deontological stance, the moral imperative is defined by the company's code of ethics and by the laws of the United States, which stand against bribery. Thus by any ethical perspective, Valerie is obligated to report the fraud.

Valerie is facing both personal and professional stressors. She faces personal stressors in the possibility of losing her status in the United States, which would cause her to move. This would create significant upheaval in her personal life, including possibly compromising her relationship. In addition, she risks losing access to her higher education as the result of dismissal should the issue with Waters result in that. Despite some enhancement of whistleblower protections in recent years, there is still the risk of dismissal.

Valerie is also facing a number of professional stressors. She does not know if Waters' acceptance of bribes is standard industry practice or not. Wisson has a code of ethics, but this may be for show rather than something that upper management takes seriously. If that is the case, then Waters may not be dismissed. In such a situation, Valerie would have an unworkable situation. Moreover, she feels some responsibility for the team. She does not know if reporting Waters would benefit the team, which has suffered under his leadership, or if it would hurt the team in that it would be disbanded.

Waters appears to have fairly limited ethics. His moral imperative appears to be guided by whatever will benefit him the most personally. Under his watch, the organization has become less effective and has seen its size reduced by 60%. Waters does not feel the need to work hard, so he provides a poor example for his team as well. He is an ineffective leader, and is not respected by his charges. Beyond that, he is failing in his responsibility to the shareholders. As a manager, he has a duty to act as an agent of the shareholders (Donaldson & Davis, 1991). This means that he should be pursuing tactics that will earn the company the most profit. Waters instead is pursuing self-interest to the detriment of earning the most profit.

The corporate culture appears to be contributing to the dilemma. Nobody in senior management appears to be especially concerned with Waters, although they did reduce the size of the unit. That nepotism appears to be tolerated at the firm shows immediately a poor ethical guidepost for the other employees. The culture is not one where excellence is promoted, nor is hard work. As a result, Waters is able to believe that he can get away with his activities.

The low morale also contributes to the development of ethical problems. Vitell and Davis (1990) identified that there is a correlation between employee morale and the ethical standards of upper management. Employees are more fearful of their own position, and act defensively. This is the situation that Valerie is facing -- her instincts are to be defensive because the company tends not to support its employees. Low morale issues tend to go hand in hand with unethical behavior, so Waters is as much a symptom as he is a problem. However, Valerie is not in a position to deal with the morale issue. She is in a position to deal with Waters, so that must be her first priority.