Ethical Analysis of a Workplace Financial Dilemma
This paper examines the ethical dimensions of a workplace financial dilemma in which a recently laid-off investment banking employee must decide whether to cash a $2,500 American Express credit check that the company has not noticed. Drawing on three major ethical frameworks — utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics — the paper evaluates the positions of both the employee and the company as stakeholders. It argues that because the company violated fundamental values of honesty, promise-keeping, fairness, and loyalty by rescinding a promised position, the employee is ethically justified in retaining the funds. The analysis concludes by applying Rushworth Kidder's "Front Page Test" as a final ethical check.
- Introduction: The Ethical Dilemma: Framing the financial dilemma and ethical stakes
- Salient Moral Issues and Ethical Options: Three ethical lenses applied to the case
- External and Internal Stakeholders: Contrasting company and employee ethical positions
- Final Analysis and Ethical Justification: Recommendation to retain the funds
- Conclusion: Kidder's Front Page Test confirms ethical decision
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically applies three named ethical frameworks — utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics — to a concrete scenario, demonstrating how different lenses yield different conclusions.
- It identifies and distinguishes the perspectives of both stakeholders, showing that each party can invoke the same ethical model (deontology) but arrive at opposing conclusions depending on which values were violated.
- The use of Kidder's "Front Page Test" as a concluding heuristic is an effective rhetorical device that grounds the abstract ethical argument in everyday public judgment.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates multi-framework ethical reasoning: rather than committing to a single moral theory, it tests the dilemma against each of the three standard business-ethics lenses and explains why the utilitarian lens offers little guidance while the deontological and virtue lenses prove decisive. This comparative application of frameworks is the hallmark of an undergraduate business ethics analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing paragraph that defines ethics and establishes the stakes. It then presents the three ethical lenses before applying them to the case. A dedicated stakeholder section contrasts the company's and employee's positions. The final analysis synthesizes findings into a recommendation, and the conclusion reinforces the decision using Kidder's practical test. The reference list follows APA formatting conventions.
Introduction: The Ethical Dilemma
If ethics is correctly defined as "the values that guide us to do the 'right thing' even when no one is looking" (Plotczyk, N.D.), then the dilemma facing a Global Investment Banking employee is one of deciding whether to cash a $2,500 American Express credit check in the 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 observing the employee's actions.
In this context, the employee must utilize the tools in his ethical toolbox to correctly ascertain whether cashing the check constitutes stealing company property, or whether — based on the circumstances — cashing it represents a "right decision" that balances out a significant grievous error by the company in misleading him about his job status. Understanding ethical theory is essential to working through such a dilemma systematically.
Salient Moral Issues and Ethical Options
The scenario raises the difficult question of whether cashing the check and not informing Global Investment Bank constitutes a breach of ethical and moral behavior. The blueprint for arriving at an ethical decision relies on understanding and applying three ethical lenses: utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics.
The Utilitarian 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 & Nelson, 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 choice. This model considers the "character, motivation, and intentions" (Trevino & Nelson, 2006) of the actor in arriving at an ethical decision.
For the employee, the company's actions in effectively promising him a job — only to subsequently rescind the offer and terminate his employment — must be taken into account. The fact that he had 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.). Accepting a competitor's job offer would have provided him with financial security, something that Global had promised but then took away. As the employee himself acknowledges, "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.).
Conclusion
Ethical decisions are not easy ones, particularly in "messy situations." The circumstances and the employee's own moral compass on right and wrong lead him to cash the check, grounded in the Virtue Model. The Deontological Model further demonstrates that Global had not acted according to socially accepted customs and values.
The employee can feel confident and comfortable in his decision, particularly if he applies Rushworth M. Kidder's "Front Page Test," which postulates: "Would you feel uncomfortable if what you are about to do showed up tomorrow morning on the front pages of the nation's newspapers?" (Kidder, 1995). A preponderance of individuals reading the story would likely acknowledge that the company had wronged the employee and that he was entitled to the $2,500 as fair compensation for that grievance.
References
Brainy Quote. (N.D.). Bentham. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jeremy_bentham.html
Case Study. (N.D.). $2,500.00 Response.
Kidder, R. (1995). How good people make tough choices. William Morrow. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from
Plotczyk, P. (N.D.). Why ethics? Why now? Work Systems Affiliates. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://www.wsa-international.com/414-why-ethics-why-now/
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2006). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.