Phase 2 IP 1

Phase 2 Ip 1 Rebecca Lyn Oberstadt INTD670-1304B-04 Leadership and Ethical Decision-Making Instructor Maurice Ivy December 12, 2013   The Dilema Bill and Joe have a great working relationship. Joe met Bill a year prior and it was to form a contract between their two companies to produce uniforms for the company Bill runs. Throughout the contract Bill and Joe formed a friendship and they went on several non business related events and outings with their families. This never affected their business relationship before, but now there is a contract on the line to be considered. Joe has to weigh the ethical ramifications of Bills proposed outing to see if it could potentially harm the company in any way or hinder the current contract dealings. Since Joe and Bill developed a friendship after the first contact was signed and they have kept business, business; I don’t feel as an impartial observer, that this could hurt the contract dealings. Joe will continue to do his job the way he always has and going on this trip with Bill will not hurt either company any. Joe should graciously accept Bill’s invitation. When it comes to the theory that should be used in this ethical situation I would still consider Utilitarianism. It offers different perspectives that focus on the good of all. (McAdams, Neslund, & Neslund,2007). The Utilitarianism theory allows both parties to do what is best for each person but also for their business and be equal in both aspects. “A decision that maximizes the ratio of good over evil for all those concerned is the ethical course” (McAdams, Neslund, & Neslund, 2007). I think it equally focuses on what each company and each person needs to make a complete decision based solely on the facts and not based on personal relationships. It unlike other ethical theories bases things on the facts not on feelings, who can get more for less or other perspectives that I would deem less than ethical. Most people view this ethical dilemma differently than I do. Most chose Egoism and Altruism because it benefits people based on feelings and they keep common goals in line with the outcome and the theories they feel should be applied to the situation. They focus more on the consequences rather than the facts and the black and white of things. Feelings should not have any place in an ethical decision. It’s based on what is good and right not if it makes you feel bad. I think that compromising an ethical part of the decision making can also compromise more than just the contract and friendships. I think trying to keep things equal on both parts will be the best for everybody involved because you want to make sure that the things you do are of equal benefit to each person and company. Trying to use emotions to decide on things can get very messy when it comes to a business. Businesses are run on facts and figures not on how you feel about a situation. If you based all business decisions on a feeling you can get hurt not only financially but in other ways too. Making sure that every aspect is covered in the situations when it comes to the contract and their friendship is a must. Bill and Joe have a great working relationship based on trust and equal benefits. Joe benefits Bill by giving him great customer service and the discounted prices he enjoys. Bill benefits Joe by feeding clients to UWEAR and allowing the use of his conference room at his establishment to conduct these contract negotiation meetings. They have a relationship based on trust and a clear ethical benefit where each party is happy. This contract that is currently being revised to make sure both parties are happy should not come into consideration on weather Joe goes with Bill on a boating trip on an off work day with their families. If Bill does try to discuss business Joe could redirect the conversation to something else or say that they can discuss things further Monday morning. Things should be kept separate while things are being ironed out. It should be the only ethical decision here. Based on the facts and evidences put to the test I feel that Joe and Bill should go and have a great time on their boating trip, leave the office at the office and work for another day. I don’t feel this can harm either company or the contract negotiations at all. There should be no ethical decisions made based on their mutual friendship outside of the job.   Bibliography Page McAdams, T., Neslund, K., & Neslund, N. (2007). Law, business, and society (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Phase 2 Individual Project Instructor Comment Mon (12/2) 100 94 A RLO: Good job with your discussion and comments supportive ethical theory and your refutation; Your points were allocated as follows: Expounded on the ethical theory to support Joe’s response to invitation. - (30%) Solutions - Solutions and concepts are presented in a logical and articulate manner with significant theoretical support - (20%) Counter Argument - Counter argument is represented in an objective, scientific way and is clearly articulated - (15%) Rebuttal - Clearly provided a rebuttal to the opposing perspective and provided exceptional support for the original argument - (15%) Analysis - Provided quality analysis and critical thinking on the subject. - (10%) Writing Mechanics - Ideas and concepts are presented in a logical and articulate manner without writing errors. - (5%) APA Format - Work is supported with evidence and properly cited using APA style writing. - (5%) Please make sure to review the sample APA paper (see Instructor Info area) before and after writing your discussion. Make sure to consistently include the source, year, and page or para. # in your citations after each direct quote. Please make sure to perform spellcheck after writing your document (e.g., Dilema) Total Points: 94 / 100 Phase 2 Individual Project Instructor Comment Mon (12/2) 100 94 A