Ethical Business Dilema

Ethical Dilemma Analysis through the 8 questions model

Case 1 – Rental Applicant

Facts

• African-American applicant
• Stable work history
• More than enough income to cover the rent
• Good references from their previous landlord
• A couple with one young son (Family)
• Before applicants accepted, rental agent should have done a background check as a standard procedure.

Facts we don’t know

• Verifications of facts – conduct a cross check
• Whether or not the facts provided by the applicant are true ?
• Income – Salary Statement
• References from landlord – Written letter/call Work History – Stable/Unstable work experience
• Applicants behavior/habit – past rental history
• Whether or not they like to break lease or skip town – leave an unpaid rent
• The reason for postponing the application
• What does Kate mean by saying “in my experience”… whether it’s actually because of her experience dealing with application or racial discrimination.

Facts interpretation

• Stable work history – whether they have work long time or not (cross-check credential)
• A family more likely to be more settled in one place compare to single status individual. A good reference from previous landlord means that the applicant has a good record of being a good tenant.
• Have more than enough income means that the applicant has the capability to fulfill its obligation of paying the rent.

Walk in another’s shoes (problem viewed from others that involved)

Kate might give a stereotype view of the African-American applicant

Consequences

If we don’t take them :

• We might lose a good tenant.
• We might lose our business opportunity.
• We might build a strict image to prospective customer.

If we take them :

• There’s a possibility that we end up having a default rent.

Feelings

• Megan Perspective : “Look very good” for their application.
• Kate Perspective : “Don’t rush their application” – having negative perception.
• Our Perspective : According to our feeling and in combination with the facts given (provided it is true), plus we can also try to determine based on the intuition from the body language given by the applicant, most likely we will accept the applicant.

Conscience

• Yes? Provided the documents are true.
• No? Provided the documents are false. Verification whether the documents are true or false can be done by cross-checking the credential and/or validating the facts.

Explanation and Justification

In making decision, it should not be based on personal needs/views or simply intuition/feelings, it should also be based on neutral judgment from the facts given and validation. Given the normal standard procedure that needs to be fulfilled from the background check of the applicant and by checking thoroughly throughout the facts, the rental agents should be able to make a decision.

Case 2 – Sabotage: Menu

Not serving the interest of customers fully (by pushing other menu instead). By using healthy food as a bait strategy to attract customers, according to ‘Dave’.

Facts

• Food is healthy, but the quantity is limited.
• Coming up with a new menu.
• Huge expenditure on advertisement.

Facts we don’t know

• Whether the food which is ‘healthy’ is actually healthy.

Assumption whether this strategy will last for a long time.

• Whether or not people will buy fast food even though the menu is being pushed.

Facts interpretation

• New ‘healthy’ menu was launched by the company to response the public pressure for healthier lunch choices, thus by having new menu, many money involved to train and advertise the new menu. New menu launched priced lower to bring new customers, thus there will be an effect on the company’s profit.
• The objective of the business is to make money for the shareholders, thus the business need to make profit. Hence, most likely agency problem would occur, which refers to the ethical dilemma between the shareholder interest and the CEO interest.
• Dave, the store manager, wanted the staff to push the ‘upsize’ menu options and ice creams for dessert, which this refers to an issue of sabotage.

Walk in another’s shoes (problem viewed from others that involved)

• According to Carol, the manager is more inclined towards his own profit. According to Dave it is fast to maximize the profit and his own commission.
• According to customer, they might be cheated into buying unhealthy food.

Consequences

• By agreeing to Dave, the profit might be higher in the short term, whereas by going against Dave, the company might lose out on the profit. But by keeping the reputation of the company, it will help in the long-term profitability.
• She might lose her own position if she does not agree to Dave plan.
• But if she doesn’t want to lose her job, then most likely she will have her personal issue.

Feelings

• If she agrees to Dave, she will be safe, but if she goes against him, she might lose her job. (personal dilemmas)

Conscience

• In order to save the job, Carol might let her inner conscience take the back seat, because this is cognitive resonance within herself.
• Her decision will be based on how she feels, whether it is good or bad.

Explanation and Justification

• If ‘yes’, she can say that her boss asked her to do so.
• If she says ‘no’, she can say her inner conscience didn’t allow her and in the long run, it won’t be beneficial to the consumer and the company.