Leadership and Ethical Decision Making Scenario

Joe has made considerable progress towards contract renewal between UWEAR and Peninsula Hotel chain and has planned a meeting with his management team to discuss the contract renewal. In light of the challenges relating to decline sales and profitability of UWEAR as well as the increased pressures to perform, Joe is optimistic that the contract renewal between these two firms will help in promoting continued success and employment with UWEAR. However, the contract negotiations have created a strained relationship between Joe and Bill lately because of the complexities involved in the negotiation process. Actually, the good relationship between Joe and Bill played an influential role in securing the contract renewal between the two companies despite the significantly cheaper offer from Threads4U. Bill has invited Joe and his wife for a short trip on the yacht, which will provide a good opportunity for both couples to catch up since they haven't been out together in a while.

While Joe is relieved to have received this invitation to help strengthen their relationship, it presents some ethical challenges/issues that Joe must consider. The invitation raises some considerations for Joe given the significance of ethical decision-making during this period of negotiations for contract renewal. Joe must consider the potential implications of accepting or declining the invitation with regards to its impact on their relationship and the contract renewal process. From an ethical perspective, the most important consideration for Joe in this situation is how his response to the invitation would affect UWEAR in light of the contract renewal process with Peninsula. Even though accepting the invitation would help strengthen the relationship between Joe and Bill, it could have significant negative impacts on UWEAR and Peninsula with regards to the contract renewal process. Therefore, Joe needs to consider the wellbeing of the company more than his relationship with Bill when making decisions about the invitation.

As shown in the consideration that Joe should make, there are several stakeholders in this situation. The interests of these different stakeholders in the situation play a crucial role in determining the most suitable decision and course of action for Joe. The first two stakeholders in this situation are Joe and Bill who have established a great working relationship over the years. Joe and Bill are crucial stakeholders in this situation because their relationship has been crucial towards creation of business contracts between UWEAR and Peninsula. Actually, one of the considerations for Joe when determining whether to accept the invitation or not is the nature of their relationship with Bill. The other stakeholders are UWEAR and Peninsula whose business interests have played a crucial role in previous and current contracts or business deals between the two companies. In this regard, Joe's decision requires consideration of the business interests of UWEAR and Peninsula and its potential impact on the operations of these two companies.

The situation Joe is currently facing is a scenario with probable conflict of interest, which is basically a situation that could create conflicts between personal interests and the interests of a business organization or institution (Heathfield, 2017). Given the emerging conflict of interest in this situation, there are various potential outcomes. First, if Joe accepts Bill's invitation, there could be organizational consequences in relation to business ethics. Such a decision is likely to generate concerns that Joe influenced Bill to maintain the current higher price and award the contract to UWEAR or that Bill influenced Joe to lower the price of the offer. Secondly, if Joe declines Bill's invitation, it could significantly harm their good working relationship, which bas been strained lately because of contract negotiations.

While the situation generates significant ethical concerns and issues, Joe must make a decision on whether or not to accept Bill's invitation. Given the issues highlighted and discussed in Part I of this paper, the most suitable response to Bill's invitation is for Joe to decline the invitation. Joe should decline Bill's invitation because of the potential legal and ethical ramifications it would have on UWEAR and Peninsula since negotiations for contract renewal between the two companies are still ongoing. However, for Joe to ensure that he maintains a good working relationship with Bill even when declining the invitation, he needs to explain the logic behind his decision. Joe should explain to Bill that since contract renewal negotiations are still ongoing, he would want to act in a manner that could be perceived unethical or could be seen to influence decisions regarding the contract. He should explain to Bill the potential ramifications of accepting the invitation in relation to the ongoing contract renewal negotiations. Joe should also notify Bill that accepting the invitation could generate negative consequences on the operations of both companies because of appearance of impropriety if he accepts the invitation to join him.

The decision by Joe to decline the invitation is supported by the utilitarianism ethical theory, which focuses on promoting the good of all. Based on this theory, an act is not inherently right or wrong, but its rightness or wrongness is determined based on its overall good (Moreland, n.d.). In this case, the decision to decline Bill's invitation is viewed as Joe's duty to ethical behavior, to UWEAR and its employees. Through declining the invitation, Joe would essentially be acting in the interests of all stakeholders. In this case, such a response would create the greater good for the greater number since it would help avoid probable negative consequences if he accepts the invitation. I would use the utilitarianism ethical theory to support Joe's decision because of its focus on promoting the good of all, which is an important consideration in ethical decision-making. The theory is suitable for this situation because it enables Joe to consider the interests of all stakeholders in order to make a decision that would be acceptable by and beneficial to all.

However, others may propose that Joe should accept the invitation to join Bill on the yacht since that would help strengthen the existing good working relationship between them. Proponents of such a view are likely to argue that Joe should ensure that they do not discuss anything relating to their businesses and contract renewal during the trip, but instead focus on other social issues relating to their relationship. Through avoiding any discussions relating to their companies and contract renewal process, they would essentially avoid any potential ethical issues or influence on the negotiations.

While this view is beneficial with regards to strengthening the good working relationship between Joe and Bill, it undermines the concept of business ethics and probable consequences in this situation. The view does not focus on the interest of all stakeholders in the situation, but is biased towards the working relationship between these two individuals. The failure to consider the interests of the other stakeholders involved in the situation demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such a decision in addressing the emerging ethical issues/challenges. Secondly, this decision is likely to generate huge negative consequences on the two individuals and their companies. Some of the potential issues likely to emerge are claims of bribery, influence of the trip on the contract renewal, and unethical behavior by both Joe and Bill.

Therefore, there is no compromise solution to this problem based on the opposing views or proposals for Joe to accept the invitation. The most suitable solution to this ethical problem is for Joe to decline the invitation because of the duty of care he owes his company and co-workers. This is a feasible solution because Joe can provide explanations to Bill on his reasons for declining the invitation, which would help protect their good working relationship and demonstrate ethical behavior.

References

Heathfield, S.M. (2017, January 28). Conflict of Interest. Retrieved April 22, 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/conflict-of-interest-1918090

Moreland, J.P. (n.d.). Ethics Theories: Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://www.equip.org/article/ethics-theories-utilitarianism-vs.-deontological-ethics/