1.

1 Ethics Dilemma
Ethics is defined as a system of principle which govern the appropriate conduct of
an individual or group. In our course of work, we will occasionally face ethical
dilemma and challenging situations. Therefore, we are required to be familiar with
the standard of ethical conduct which are expected of us as employees and to
perform our work in good faith. We must to exercise judgement to avoid creating
the appearance of misconduct or place ourselves in compromising situations.

I would like to present an ethical dilemma situation faced by a Fund Approving

Officer (FAO) working in the civil service sector. He faced an unethical issue
concerning with his Project Officer and the Contractor tendering for the project.
He knew that the applicant was not qualified for the tendering of the project due
to the facts that the company is owned by the brother-in-law of the Project officer.
There was a conflict of Interest involving the project officers, private interest,
which influence or is perceived to influences his official duties and impartiality at
work. In the scenario and according to business nature, an officers private
interest should be separate from his public duties. (Walter,2008) There should be
no conflict of interest between an officers official position and his work as well as
his activities outside his official duties. The FAO has to face this ethical dilemma
and make the right choice on whether to approve the fund for the tendering of this
project to the company or to refuse the approving of tender and to report his
superior.

Both decision have their own benefits and setbacks for the FAO. By allowing the
funds, the FAO may gain the trust and may help to propel his career forward.
However, he will have the drawback of making him an unethical person that is not
professional and ethical. On the other hand, if he chooses to reject the funds and
reports the unethical practice to his superior, he will be perceived to be in good
moral standard and gain the thrust of his higher management while being ethical.
He may even get complimented by his superiors for following his profession and
may get promoted.

1.2 Analysis of ethical dilemma.

The situation described above is considered as a business ethical dilemma

because the FAO does not practice normative ethics theory in the business
conduct. He has shown to be practicing consequentialism ethics which refers to
him judging the rightness of the actions entirely by the goodness of
consequences, (Brink, 2006). He does not fall into the wrongdoing of practising
deontology ethics theory, which refer to the moral duties to do the thing right and
to not do the wrong things. (Kant, 1998) The Project Officer has shown some
egoism when evaluating the tendering of the contract to his brother-in-laws
company. Egoistic theory refers to one who perform acts according to his own
self-interest. (Chung, 2016). The Project Officer thinks that his action is morally
right if it served his own interest. For the FAO, it is a business ethical dilemma
because he has to be firm to ensure that the business ethics is performing
 accordance to his profession and the practice conforms to the regulation listed by
the national financial regulatory body.
The ethical dilemma presented above has two choices to approve the funds for
the Project Officer to engage the Contractors or to reject the approval. The FAO
is faced with the dilemma of making the right decision in this situation. He would
not want to make the wrong decision as it would have a great impact on the
stakeholder (Phillips, 2003). A stakeholder is define as someone who influences
and can be affected by the achievement of the organization, (Marstein , 2003) the
objectives of the organization, the general interest of the public, the credibility and
the ethics of his profession. Making the right choice would lead the FAO to keep
to a good standing in the organization. In return, he would also gain more trust
from the stakeholder, upholding of the ethic of his profession, and have socially
agreeable moral intensity particularly social consensus and probability effect
parameters.

By approving the funds to the project, it may help him to gain favour from the
Project Officer because the Project Officer will view him as a good colleague. The
Project Officer may return him a favour in the future or even help him to put in
good remarks to the department head. This has clearly shown that the unethical
acts fall under consequentialism of normative ethical theory. The normative
principles give a general theory on how we are supposed to live. (Hasnas, 1998)
The Project Officer does not follow deontology ethics theory which is specified by
making the right choice, which is determine by it conform to moral rules. If the
FAO allows the contract to be tendered to the contractor this time, he will be seen
by the Project Officer as performing an utilitarian practice. As such the Project
Officer will take advantage of his unethical practice and request for his help
repeatedly.

However, when the unethical practice is to be found out by the independent

auditor team or the project cannot be completed by the contractors, the Project
Officer will throw the blame onto the FAO for processing the procurement. The
FAO will then be penalized for performing unethical acts and be issued with a
letter of warning by the organization or even worse be sacked by the organization
due to violating the basic ethical value of trust stated in its rules and regulations.

On the other hand, if the FAO insists to stay firm with his ethical principle by
rejecting the approval of funds due to the conflict of interest, the Project Officer
will be angry with him. The FAO will receive less help from his colleague or even
worse be sabotages by the Project Officer at work. The Project Officer might hold
grudges against the FAO and try to backstab him during meeting as well as try to
find fault in his work. This might cause the FAO to lose his job due to him not
meeting the department head expectation of his work during the annual
performance appraisal.

1.3 Ethical Solution

The unethical situation that the FAO now faced is from the Project Officer. The
Project Officers request to the FAO to release the funds to him so that he can
engage his brother-in-laws company which has the element of conflict of. In this
situation, the FAO feel that he is in a dilemma because the individual that
requested him to approve the funds is his colleagues. However, as a FAO, he
knows that it is wrong for him to be involved in unethical practices. He should
always uphold his morals in following the rules and regulations of the
organization but this unethical request would cause him to violate his
fundamental rights. Therefore, it is considering a dilemma situation to him. He
had to make the choice which may conflict with his morals entirely. On the other
hand, he may get a favour from the Project Officer or get sabotaged resulting in
him losing his job.

Agent should not be allowed to make morally improper decisions even if by doing
creates a more positive outcome for both parties. The rights decision that the
FAO should make is to disclose the relationship between his colleagues and the
contractor to the appropriate authority and disqualify the procurement. By doing
so, the FAO would have performed the principle of normative ethics theory. He
should eliminate any form of consequentialism ethics practice and adopt
deontology ethic practice. He should practice ethics by moral value, performing
his duties and knowing what is not supposed to be done. Per Alexander & Moore
(2007) which suggest that the most familiar forms of deontology, is in contrast
with consequentialism. It justifies that some choices are made morally forbidden
no matter how good the consequences.

A feasible option is for the FAO to report the case to the top management of the
organization so that the appropriate authority can take necessary action against
this business ethical dilemma. If not, it will subsequently affect the reputation,
social thrust of the society and have social agreeable moral intensity particularly
social consensus and probability effect parameters. The fund approving officer,
could then uphold the integrity of financial and ethic of his profession. If he
performs the right ethics, he will not be facing the dilemma that put him into
difficult situation.

The impact on society for this dilemma can be analysed in six components based
on moral intensity. Moral intensity is defined as a situation-based factor
composed of unique issue-contingencies that strengthen employees ethical
reasoning in ethical situations (Jones 1991). First, the magnitude of
consequences is mostly scored between 8 -10 points whereby this ethical
dilemma situation can be affecting anyone in the society. Secondly, the social
consensus is relatively weak when the act is not deemed acceptable by the
society, the stakeholder and the national regulatory as there is conflicts of the
interest between the performing parties. Thirdly, the probability of effect is further
diminished by the presence of an annual audit team, which acts as a deterrence
since they can easily have detected agents who operate through unethical
means. Fourthly, the temporal immediacy will be high as the funds is needed
almost immediately in this situation and is controlled by the FAO who has great
autonomous authority. Fifth, the proximity of the dilemma is considering high
because both parties are closely related as colleague, of which one had the rights
to approve and one with the right to evaluate the tendering of the contract to the
vendor. Lastly the concentration of effects should be low in term of the
organization is huge with many branches and it may occur in one branches or a
few and perhaps only a handful of this situation occur due to favouritism for friend
and distinguish personal. Therefore, the overall result of the moral intensity show
that this is a low risk of massive consequences that would affect a handful of
personal in our location and society, but not going to happen immediately.

2.0 Portfolio of Evidence Contents

2.1 Appendix A

The Ethical Leadership Debate

This is a reflection of the argument presented in the debate on Ethical

Leadership. The statement criticizes on the ethics of the four character presented
in the case study who are Mike Gustavsson, Jan Edward, Mei Hua Felung, and
Deshi Chen. There was heated debating over the ethics shown by the four
characters during the class discussion.

Mike whom is the business ethic lecturer believes that corporation are shaped
by the behaviour of the top management of the organization. He imposes his
belief that the company ethic is driven by the ethical personnel sitting at the top
management. It shows that Mike is practising Deontology ethic theory base on
the facts that he was bounded by his duty as an ethic teaching lecturer. Mike has
also shown to be a discretionary stakeholder demonstrating Maxim 3 of
Universality and fall at stage 6 of Kohlberg moral stage of development which
represent him as universal ethical -principle orientation). He regards humanity
and preserving its value and dignity. Unfortunately, as an individual, he falls under
the stage 5 when he disregards the equality and rights of his daughter as an
individual. His action is in conflict with his stakeholder view when he chooses to
protest against the company which is unethical.

Jan Edward, whom is the CEO of Clean Solution Inc, believed that it was her
duty to persuade her employee to contributing their time to charity work. It was
clearly shown that Jan was practicing feminist ethics theory (approach identifies
relationality, care, vulnerability, and responsibility as privileged concepts and
attitudes) (Maeckelberghe,2004) in her character where she emphasizes the
need to care for people who are more disadvantaged. As the CEO, she has the
power and legitimate influence over the project which put her as the dominant
stakeholder. (Baskerville-Moley, 2004). According to Kohlberge theory Jan fall at
the stage 6, where she must defend her own set of moral principle even it means
to go against the rest of the society in the process. (Kohlberge, 1977). However,
she has also shown to be at stage 3 when she wants to be a good person by
showing that she did not force her employee to contribute to charity. She also
demonstrates to have utilitarian ethics in the process.

Mei-Hua showcases utilitarian ethics. As most of the audience feels that Mei-
huas utilitarianism is shown when she tries to comply by helping the company to
avoid tax and she think that it has nothing wrong with doing that. However, it
conflicts with her ethical principles on what she supposed to uphold on the code
of conduct as the accountant. It has been pointed out both Jan and Mike team
that Meihua is unethical in her desicion as she is being egoistic to think that what
she is doing is always accordance to the ethical practice of other company. I
would put her in stage 3 and 4 where she trying to be a model worker in her
company and maintain the social order by obeying the practice of as an
accountant.

Deshi on the other hand is clearly an egoistic individual. He believes that the
corporate code of governance and ethical leadership does not exist. He strongly
disagrees with ethical leadership as employee are only focusing more on
shareholder ship than stakeholder. Under (Kohlberg, 1997) Deshi fall in stage 3
where he tries to be a exemplary child in front of his parents to get the degree
they want him to. He also falls into stage 2 where he has been shown to be going
through the motion when taking his degree and attending ethic lesson which he
disagree with the teaching. He expects the school to reward him in return of his
contribution to the school. However, the only positive traits that Deshi has is his
honesty as compare to the rest. He is the only person who have shown to stick to
his principles

2.2 Appendix B

The case of Holiday.

The following statement critiques the two-dilemma situation identified in the

case of Holiday. The problem with Borries being called back by his boss had
caught him in a tight situation on choosing to continue with his holiday with Swee
lan or to give up on the trip.

The choice for Borries to give up his trip with his girlfriend had causes him to
be identified as an egoistic individual (An action is morally right as it benefit the
individual. Borries cares only about his job progression because it was the client
that put the power onto him (Kant, 9). Even though It is clearly shown that the trip
to meet his girlfriends parent is very important for his girlfriend, he still choose to
give up his trip for fear of losing his hard-earned job upon denying the offer from
his boss. He is in stage 3 where he wants to be an obedient employee in the
company. He chooses to put himself and his job as the top priority, despite the
disagreement with his colleague regarding his action. This shows that he
chooses not to be utilitarian against his colleagues.
 On the other hand, Borries could choose to give up his job opportunity and go
on the holiday with his girlfriend, with this action, Utilitarian is applied in Borriess
character (An action is to fulfil the greatest happiness of the greatest number of
people) (William, 1973). By blending in with his colleagues, it gives him an
opportunity to turn down the task requested by his employee in the future.
However, he risk losing thrust from his client s; and in more serious cases might
risk losing his job for deceiving his stakeholder.

In the case for Swee lan, she had performed have feminist ethic in this matter.
She to accepted the negotiation with Borries when he told her that he could not
go for the holiday with her. She did not impose her will on Borries to reject the
Job offer as she wants to still want to maintain a good relationship with Borries.
However, she might be viewing Borries as an egoistic person when he chooses
his job over their relationship.

On the contrast, the case Marcus and friends reaction are making a nuisance
in Borries decision. They are not closely related to Borries. Marcus and friend are
merely trying to act Non-Consequentialist Ethic on Rights and Justice. Marcus
and friend are trying to influence Borries on choosing to go for the trip because
they are afraid they might face the same situation in the future and they had to
accept to side with the company than their families. They expect Borries to act
utilitarian when making his decision.

Overall, I feel that Borries had made the right decision in turning down the holiday
trip and take upon the job requirement. He had an understanding girlfriend who
support his decision at the same time he could fulfil the tasked by his boss. He
will get complimented for the job and he will get compensation for turning down
the holiday in the future. He could make another trip in the future with Swee lan
when he has the time to do so. As for his Colleague, they are just mosquito to
his decision as he could just ignore their presence.

2.3 Appendix C

Interpersonal and team work skills.

This statement reflects my interpersonal and team working skills that I have
learnt. Interpersonal skills are the social skills relate to the relationship we have
with other people, it taught us on how effectively to communicate and interact
with one another. (ONeil,2014). Team-working skill are more on cooperation with
one another, considering on individual skill, feedback and able to mitigate conflict
between individuals. (Ellis & Barch, 2015).

From this module, Applied Business Ethics, I have learned to apply theory on
the ethics choice that everyone is using. We will be face with different ethics
dilemma, we need to understand how to identify the rights and the wrong and
understands the theory behind each action. In my team, we have always come
together to brainstorm and collective contribute ideas during our debate and
group work. I have always doubt on my ability to understand this modules on
Business Ethics, however, I gain much knowledge through the multiple class
activity and teaching,

By studying business ethics, it has help to enhance my skill in team-working. I

can listen to my groupmate ideas better, and understand from their point of view.
At the same time, I abled to provide ideas and debate with my team-mate over
the views by applying the theory that we have learned. In overall, I feel that
having a good team-work is very important for each of us in this business world.
Without team work, we would never go beyond our imagination to explore more
option to solve the problem we have.

In conclusion, this module allows me to learn more on the different aspect of

the business ethics and how people applied their ethics to achieve something
they required most. In the future, I would have learnt to make good use of the
knowledge and apply the appropriate business ethic correctly. I will be also able
to uphold the business ethic undertaking to avoid any business ethical dilemma
and practice unethical acts.