Case Study on Organizational Ethics

Organizational Ethics Case Study



Introduction 3
Identification of Stakeholders 4
Implication of Ethical Theories 4
Personal Reflection 6
Conclusion 7
Bibliography 8

Case 2
(Word-excluding bibliography: 1720)

Ethics is a concept perennially relevant in every aspect of civilization. With the progression of our species, ethics has been a core element which defines us a human being. As mankind progressed, as business became more organized then came the concept of organizations which are present in current times and a factor of consideration for our study. If an organization fails to maintain a standard of code of ethics and suffer defamation in the eyes of people then it is a grave harm to the organization and its ideals. (Phillips, 2003) Organizational ethics serve a critical purpose in the proper functioning in an organization and are helpful during any crisis or dilemma related to decision making. Organizational ethics are not a part of the organization’s goal but rather a general practice that is supposed to be followed by all organizations. (Loe, Ferrell & Mansfield, 2000)The base of these ethics is derived from more than one source and there are frequent debates over the correctness and appropriateness of a certain concept of ethics with respect to a given situation. Organizational Ethics are crucial for making the organizational process necessarily ethical. An organization is run essentially by human being and is prone to indecision and mistakes which makes it fundamental to gain knowledge of various concepts of organizational knowledge that come into play during all manner of situations. (Cadbury, 1992) Since the breaks in these ethics are resultant of both organizational and individual level variable levels, the studies on this case have to be based on both types of variables. The purpose of this essay is to study the case in question and analyze the required aspects in detail and ponder over the theories of organizational ethics that are connected to it. It is also necessary to form an opinion based on the theories attached to the case which shall be attempted here.

Identification of Stakeholders

In this case there are two stakeholders which can be primarily affected by this decision. The first stakeholder is Ahmed on which lays the decision to become an employee at or whether to begin a private venture undertaking the resources adopted by which would make him their direct competitor. The second stakeholder is Michelle Jordan who is the managing director of She recruited Ahmed to train under the company and after being pleased with his work, offered him a job at after he graduated. She is at stake because if Ahmed decides to continue with a private venture, she is bound to face a competitor who is going to utilize their customer database and their customized software and it is very likely that the competition will gravely affect the future of The Interests of Michelle in this case are pure as she is open to recruit Ahmed in their firm and will pay him his fair share if he does so. Ahmed’s interests in this case are at conflict and clear at the same time as his interests depend on what he requires of the ordeal as he is left to decide whether he wants to work at or not. It is pretty clear that he wants to pursue working in the same direction but the dilemma is that Ahmed can work with and get the amount of pay and perks that he is allowed or he can initiate his own separate venture which will be in the same field and will directly affect the success of It is evident that if Ahmed is left to choose what he wants to pursue, it depends on the level of his needs whether to pursue working with or to continue with the commencement of his own business.
Implication of Ethical Theories

The course of action which is upon Ahmed can be focused on through the concept of Utilitarianism as the resulting action has a significant impact on the life of Ahmed. This concept introduced by John Stuart Mill can be used to explain what Ahmed can to do to meet his ends. It is a dilemma for Ahmed whether to work with or initiate a private venture with according to his personal needs. This is where the concept of Utilitarianism comes into picture because if Ahmed decides that he wants more monetary income and freedom to operate his own enterprise then it is ethically correct for him to adopt the idea of opening his own venture and pursue his goals without taking in consideration the wishes of Michelle Jordan, his former employer. Considering the ethical stand of this decision, it is evident that the application of this theory suggests its consequentialist Nature. (Mill, 1951) The Origin of conflict in the acknowledgement of this theory is the means of achieving one’s personal goals. This aspect of Utilitarianism is expanded by Ayn Rand explaining how being selfish helps an individual and it acceptable if the wishes and well being of other individuals are not taken into account. (Rand and Branden, 1964) Similarly, it is observed that the decision which leads Ahmed to begin his own venture will create a huge competetion which will exorbitantly affect the success of his former employer Michelle Jordan and her company, He can also choose to work under her, if he is satisfied with the liberty and amount of pay given to him in the amount of time that he works under her and that alternative is also ethically correct according to Utilitarianism as it doesn’t take into account the well being of other individuals as long as the means of the individuals in consideration are affected. According to Utilitarianism, any decision Ahmed chooses to pursue is ethically correct. Although, it is likely that Ahmed may choose the alternative which is more fruitful to him that the other regardless of the factor that it may hamper the well being or success of other individual. The limitation of this theory is that Utilitarianism does not take into account the morals of an individual as long as it is not illegal to do something. It totally ignores the emotional morals that can be wrong to harm another individual. It is important to consider those types of outcomes if an individual considers his relationship with an individual who can get affected by this decision. Other limitation of this theory is that it doesn’t take the virtues of an individual into account if he is considerate of other people’s needs and well being and considers every individual under observation as selfish without questioning his virtues.
The actions which are to be undertaken by Ahmed have a significant effect on the life of another individual as well as the company that he previously worked for. The concept of Ethics recognized as care/Feminist ethics can be used to rationalize the decision of Ahmed and a conclusion can be reached regarding the ethical correctness of the decision. Care Ethics can be classified as a non-consequentialist theory. Care Ethics (often termed as Feminist Ethics) was conceptualized by Carol Gilligan and later by many others in the field of Psychology. (Gilligan, 1982) The view of a decision and its moral and ethical integrity is supposed to be evaluated under care ethics and the concept of Just-Caring which was popularized by Gilligan. Just Caring can be explained in the following manner as a decision that displays care towards an individual and is just as well. (Held, 1995) The decision of commencing a private setup utilizing the resources of and earning profit cannot be classified as morally just as it was that gave Ahmed the opportunity for the internship and gave the resources which should not be used for creating a private setup and creating a huge competetion against the firm. On the other hand it would stand as a betrayal in the viewpoint of his former employer who extended him an opportunity to work under giving him a direct work prospect which is a caring gesture and if Ahmed adheres to opening his own venture using their resources, it would be recognized as rude and uncanny according to the morals defined by Care Ethics. The Ethically Correct decision according to this theory would be to join and progress his career through working for them. It would be acknowledging the caring gesture undertaken by his former Employer Michelle Jordan. This would include the aspect of considering the past experiences with his former employer and the sensitivity concerned with this matter. The defined limitations of this theory are that this theory ignores the well being of the individual and his own wishes and suggests complying with justness. The other limitation of this theory is that sometimes the decisions taken complying with care ethics can be logically/reasonably wrong.

Personal Reflection

The final decision stands with Ahmed but if I would put myself in his position then I would be left with two options. If I am not happy with working under an organization then I would prefer starting a venture building my own resources rather than what Ahmed was partly considering. But my last and final decision would be to work with considering their generous offer to provide employment. It would be morally right and favorable according to me. I would ignore selfishness considering the aspect that the alternative would destroy any possible relation with my former employer and would set a bad reputation of being unoriginal possibly. Considering reason and personal principles, I would positively respond to the invitation of employment by and would look forward to working with them.

It can be concluded after analyzing the case and its complexities and moral conflict, the stakeholders and their successive aftermaths regarding the decision, and analyzing the theories and forming a tether with the situation for producing an ethically correct outcome that the study on this matter was rigorous and the theories which were undertaken for deciding the ethical correctness were undertaken considering the particular nature of the case which included indecision which had outcomes leading to either total betrayal resulted from selfish greed of the individual( also considering his wish to perform separately from an organization), or a morally just and caring decision which would result in a healthy bond with an individual and the related organization in consideration which was concluded to be morally and ethically right taking into account established theories and personal opinions.


Cadbury, A. (1992). Report on the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. London: Gee Ltd. of Professional Publishing Ltd.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Held, V. (1995). Justice and care. 1st ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Loe, T., Ferrell, L. and Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), pp.185–204.
Mill, J. (1951). Utilitarianism, Liberty, and Representative government.. 1st ed. New York: Dutton.
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. 1st ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Rand, A. and Branden, N. (1964). The virtue of selfishness. 1st ed. [New York]: New American Library.


Posted on

March 7, 2018

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.