Ethics Case Study Essay
Ethics Case Study
Mike feel that with this years of knowledge teaching ethics. It is important to have a personal code of conduct and every organisation should also have a corporate code of governance. He even willing to go an extra mile just to exercising his code of conduct. However, he is more interested in ethical behaviour of others rather than reward system and capitalism. And he acknowledge that all these claims could be due to his egoism. Regarding about his unethical daughter, he agreed that he may have instil his value into his daughter instead of considering his daughter value. As he agreed that is difficult for any ethical leader to strike a balance between shareholder ship and stakeholder ship. Moreover, Mike feel that even corporate code of governance is important but it may also not practical to the shareholder. And he blame the corporate for influencing his daughter towards shareholders view.
Mike feel that his characteristic is similar to Jan. As both of them have a stakeholder views and are determine to change the shareholder trend. Mike feel that Jan have a virtue and feminist characteristic which resemble to Gandhi. Mike feel that Jan is a responsible stakeholder, where she practice transparency and having consensus decision. However, Jan and Deshi think otherwise about Mike where she finds Mike is inconsistence as Mike is willing to bend the rules just to benefit others. Observers feel that Mike is an expert in ethics and he can proclaim certain perspective on what he believes in, because of his expertise. Mike feel that the observers may be correct and agreed with the observers. Jan
Believing deontology principal by practicing non consequentialism ethics. Jan feel that her consistency in participate in charity by visiting Guatemala frequently and her human dignity by empowering her employees are one of her way to achieve triple bottom line, where she feel that it will grow social corporate society with her long term interest. She believe her charity nature will nurture a lot of her employees into entrepreneurship. She also believe by setting good example to her employees by being transparency and being accountability to the organization that will influence her employees to be proactive in her charity works. However, some observers feel that Jan did not maximize the company profit as her focus are mainly on how to make
employees to contribute more time in the charity rather than how to make more money for the company. Moreover, observers feel that such practice is due to Jan egoism instead of her being consistency in an ethical way as the charity conducted by Jan is not for the company benefit but more for her personal preference.
Mike feel nothing wrong with Jan doing as Jan did not violate the Kantism Human Dignity and she is consistency with her charity works. However, Mike feel there may be some utilitarianism act at Jan end when she conduct her charity. Jan feel that her character is similar to Mike as both have deontology principal and focus of achieving triple bottom line. Moreover, Jan believe her consistently practice of ethical are in line with both code of governance and ethical leadership. She believe that she can balance between stakeholder ship and shareholder ship. Moreover, she feel that having long shareholder view will not sustain the company for too long. Therefore, she is taking the stakeholder approach. Meihua and Mike agreed that Jan self-exemplary behaviour, by practicing her ethics daily clearly show her consistency ethical leadership. But Deshi doesn’t agreed with Meihua statement. Meihua
Meihui believe ethics is important. Moreover, she don’t find her doings are unethical because whatever she does, she is doing for the benefit of the company and her practice is always within the rules. But Jan and Mike finds Meihua practice is wrong as Meihua goes against the ethical principal on what dutifulness she supposed to be doing for her clients, also her obligation to the government. They feel that Meihua had violated the code of corporate governance and professional code of ethics as Meihua bended the system clearing showed that Meihui is not comply with morality, and her interchangeable code of conduct only showed she had applied consequentialism leadership. Jan highlighted further that Meihua could have been conform to the top down approach because of her egoism. However, Deshi find whatever Meihua does is right and disagreed with Jan and Mike findings. But observers feel that Meihua practice are more on utilitarianism and virtue ethics rather than egoism. DeshiDeshi condone ethics as he strongly feels that ethics and profit can never co exists.
Being a shareholder, he deem corporate code of governance and ethical leadership is pointless as he deem such ethical rules can be break at any time when ones want to achieve profit. He strongly disapproved that ethical leadership taught in university and believe that ethics are near hearsay than practice, because employees will focus more on shareholder ship than stakeholder ship. Meihua, Mike and Jan feel that the reason why Deshi is unethical is due to his upbringing instead of communism culture, as Deshi may feel obligated to focus of making money first to support his family who had provided financial support to him all these years before considering helping others. Mike feel that is could also because of his indefensible ego that result Deshi to condone ethics. Moreover, being ideology seem to be much more of consequentialism leadership, that does not look at stakeholder value neither believe everything have to be with corporate code of governance. However, some observer feel that Deshi could be practicing Right and Justice Ethics. Rights of practicing his believes that ethics are obsolete and by focusing of making more money to justify the effort by repaying his earning for his parents who had supported him.