Response paper on an assigned topic

Tim Randall

If ethics is correctly defined "as the values that guide us to do the 'right thing' even when no one is looking" (Plotczyk, P.N.D.), then the dilemma facing the Global Investment Banking employee (Bill Smith) is one of deciding whether to cash the $2,500 American Express credit check, in absence of any indication that the company is aware of the discrepancy. There would be no ethical issue had the company been cognizant of the credit error, however; their lack of knowledge on the subject creates the functional equivalent of no one looking at Bill's actions. In this context Bill must utilize the tools in his ethical toolbox to correctly ascertain whether cashing the check is in fact stealing company property, or if based on the circumstances the cashing of the check constitutes a "right decision" which balances out a significant grievous error by the company in misleading Smith on his job status.

Salient Moral Issues and Ethical Options

The scenario playing out asks the difficult question of whether cashing the check and not informing Global Investment Bank is a breach of ethical and moral behavior. The blueprint for arriving at an ethical decision relies on understanding and utilizing a set of ethical lenses: utilitarianism, deontological, and virtue. The Utilitarianism Lens prescribes choices as ethical, if according to Jeremy Bentham "it is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong" (Brainy Quote. N.D.). The Deontological Lens probes the concept of socially recognized and accepted values "honesty, promise keeping, fairness, and loyalty" (Trevino, L.K. 2006) as the cornerstones of ethical decisions. The Virtue Ethics Lens relies on the decision maker's own personal set of beliefs in formulating an ethical decision. This model considers the "character, motivation, and intentions" (Trevino, L.K. 2006) of the actor in arriving at an ethical choice.

For Bill Smith the actions of the company in effectively promising him a job, only to subsequently rescind the offer and serve him his walking papers must be taken into account. The fact that Smith cut off interviews with other firms was a direct result of the company's promise and their statement that the "bank valued him as an employee" (Case Study. N.D.). The acceptance of a competitor's job offer would have provided Smith with financial security, something that Global had promised him, but then took away. Smith acknowledges that "normally I would have informed the human resources staff about this discrepancy and returned the money to the bank, but now however; I felt that the bank had misled me regarding my job status" (Case Study. N.D.).

External and Internal Stakeholders

The stakeholders in this scenario are straightforward: Bill Smith and Global Investment Banking. Global's position would be that the money rightfully belongs to them as they paid for the ticket. Circumstances such as the layoffs and "promises" of a European sales group position play no part in the ethical construct of Smith returning the money. Global would use the Deontological Model as their guide; Smith not returning the money is a violation of socially accepted norms and values.

Smith's position is more opaque. He also would start at the Deontological Model for assistance in making the decision however; the result would be considerably different than Global. It is the company's actions of laying off Smith after assuring him of a new position in Europe that is a violation of socially accepted values of society. Global clearly has offended basic values of "honesty, promise keeping, fairness, and loyalty" (Trevino, L.K. 2006). The Virtue Ethics Model also plays a key role in Smith's decision. His own guidelines of virtuous behavior depend a great deal on the circumstances which have placed him in this dilemma; the actions of the company leave him no alternative but to provide for his own financial security by cashing the check. The incentives and motivation for making that choice are correct according to his understanding of what is right and wrong. The Utilitarian Model does not play a substantially useful role in the decision process as the choice to keep or return the money leaves one party a loser; a zero- sum game where the greatest good is not enhanced.

In the final analysis Smith should keep the money. The company blatantly misled him regarding his job security, a fact which cost him another job with a competing firm and left him financially short even with the severance. The company's actions ran counter to the societal values of decency and respect. Smith's cashing of the check is a just and ethically correct decision.