LDRS 411 Ethical Reasoning Essay by John Casey
Andrew, the main actor in this ethical dilemma, is second in command in a non-profit loan organization that is known for helping families in need. He and the President were both appointed by the board of directors. They are faced with a decision of whether or not to merge with a much larger organization and have to consult the board. After time and deliberation, the board of director decides it does not want to follow through with any more conversation about a merger unless it comes directly through them; however, the president still wants to have a two-day private meeting with the interested organization despite what the board demanded.
Andrew is faced with an ethical dilemma because this is …show more content…
Andrew’s honesty is at risk because if he does not inform the board that the president is having this meeting. It would also be a lack of respect and his responsibility in doing what is asked by the people who appointed him. This ethical dilemma is a perfect example of a truth vs. loyalty situation. Andrew has to decide if he wants to stay loyal to his boss, the president, or if he wants to be truthful and do the highest right. Andrew is obligated to accurately report the facts to the board of visitors if he wants to stay truthful. With that being said, his relationship with the president may be very close, and that could present a difficult decision for him to make. In the situation, Andrew needs to use ends-based thinking and consider the consequences of choosing loyalty over truth. If he chooses to withhold the information from the board, both he and the president could lose their positions; if the board is able to appoint them, they can certainly oust them for going directly against their orders. Also, if this new larger organization does decide to merge with them, they may not be as helpful to families in need. Ends-based thinking calls for a decision that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people; in this decision, his job, the president’s job, and the values of the company are at …show more content…
He is uncertain about which decision to make because he knows that both of them are right to some degree, and he doesn’t know whether to take a stand and act on what he knows is the highest right. He also fears that his job and reputation may be at stake here. If the board finds out about this violation, which is very likely, he and the president could both potentially lose their jobs. He would also tarnish his reputation of being a truthful and honest employee and may have a hard time finding another job in that high of a position. Not only will losing his job affect him, but also his family. The two trust that allow Andrew to endure are intuition and supportive context. He asked the president if he knew it was a violation and obviously had some mixed feelings about the meeting. He knew that he needed to follow his instincts and conscience and let the board know what was going on. The board of directors is also his supportive context; he will have an entire team backing him and his decision to inform them, rather than just the
Andrew, the main actor in this ethical dilemma, is second in command in a non-profit loan organization that is known for helping families in need. He and the President were both appointed by the board of directors. They are faced with a decision of whether or not to merge with a much larger organization and have to consult the board. After time and deliberation, the board of director decides it does not want to follow through with any more conversation about a merger unless it comes directly through them; however, the president still wants to have a two-day private meeting with the interested organization despite what the board demanded.
Andrew is faced with an ethical dilemma because this is …show more content…
Andrew’s honesty is at risk because if he does not inform the board that the president is having this meeting. It would also be a lack of respect and his responsibility in doing what is asked by the people who appointed him. This ethical dilemma is a perfect example of a truth vs. loyalty situation. Andrew has to decide if he wants to stay loyal to his boss, the president, or if he wants to be truthful and do the highest right. Andrew is obligated to accurately report the facts to the board of visitors if he wants to stay truthful. With that being said, his relationship with the president may be very close, and that could present a difficult decision for him to make. In the situation, Andrew needs to use ends-based thinking and consider the consequences of choosing loyalty over truth. If he chooses to withhold the information from the board, both he and the president could lose their positions; if the board is able to appoint them, they can certainly oust them for going directly against their orders. Also, if this new larger organization does decide to merge with them, they may not be as helpful to families in need. Ends-based thinking calls for a decision that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people; in this decision, his job, the president’s job, and the values of the company are at …show more content…
He is uncertain about which decision to make because he knows that both of them are right to some degree, and he doesn’t know whether to take a stand and act on what he knows is the highest right. He also fears that his job and reputation may be at stake here. If the board finds out about this violation, which is very likely, he and the president could both potentially lose their jobs. He would also tarnish his reputation of being a truthful and honest employee and may have a hard time finding another job in that high of a position. Not only will losing his job affect him, but also his family. The two trust that allow Andrew to endure are intuition and supportive context. He asked the president if he knew it was a violation and obviously had some mixed feelings about the meeting. He knew that he needed to follow his instincts and conscience and let the board know what was going on. The board of directors is also his supportive context; he will have an entire team backing him and his decision to inform them, rather than just the