Cassidy Manning Vs. Lemar Packaging Inc.

Ethics is the guiding force in any respectable organization. With a moral compass, especially in the leadership of organization, a company can become compromised and fall into a quagmire of legal issues, a tarnished reputation, and devaluation of company stock if it is a publically traded company. In pursuit of examine my own ethical lens I will analyze the ethical traits of an admired leader, my own traits as exhibited in the Ethical Lens Inventory, and how I make a decision concerning a particular ethical dilemma.

A. (2.) Analyze the ethical issues at stake in the scenario and distinguish from legal matters.

The ethical dilemma happened because the leadership within the company

Conditions: As a leader faced with a situation which requires you to make an ethical decision.

The utilitarian approach takes all the stakeholders into consideration and prefers the “…option that does more good than harm to stakeholders”. (Ethics Video 1) In this case, Luke must analyze which decision will create the most value and benefit for the stakeholders which include some of the following: investors, employees, ABC’s reputation and partnerships, Owen, and the person buying the house from his brother.’

The method of ethical decision making which was developed by Dr. Cathryn A. Baird presented two components contained in all ethical decisions which are; The Four ethical Lenses and the 4+1 Decision process. The Four Ethical Lenses issue claims that different ethical theories and the means in which we tend to approach the situations which form part of our ethical traditions are looked at in four different perspectives. From each perspective there are different values on which to decide whether the action taken is either ethical or not and each lens also lays emphasis on determining whether the decision made is of ethical requirement. In the 4+1 Decision Process, people who are responsible for making final decisions in an organization do it

Howell Jewelry World vs. Jennifer Lawson is the legal subject and ramifications of breach of covenant not to compete. Analysis of Howell Jewelry World vs. Jennifer Lawson litigation before the presiding court contains submissions of facts, precedent cases of law, and facts to be determined. The memorandum will summarize with confidence a favorable ruling in Howell Jewelry World vs. Jennifer Lawson and Howell Jewelry vs. Triumph Jewels.

The above-mentioned areas of focus could lead to ethical violations if they are not properly

Apply the ethical decision making model presented in week one lectures (adapted from Beemsterboer, 2010; Velasquez et al, 2009) to the case study.

Management is often faced with ethical dilemmas that have no clear cut correct answer. In our case study, (1)Desperate Air, George Nash, Vice President of Real Estate faces a conflict of values similar to the CEO in Seglin’s article, “How to Make Tough Ethical Calls”. They both want to tell the truth and they want to protect their companies, their investors, their employees, and their own livelihood. Neither Mr. Nash nor the CEO conducted a through examination of the problem they faced. I believe the decision to remain silent made by both Nash and the CEO to be short sighted, based solely on short term profit, and would not have been the route I would have taken.

Luke, an employee of ABC Company has an ethical issue that makes him go and look for advise at the Ethics Department of ABC Company. The department of Ethics Department is dedicated to advise employee and prevent any risks of losing their jobs because of unaware immoral decisions. Now that the company has decided to build an adult entertainment retail store, Luke has come across a big decision. The Department of Ethics needs to help Luke decide to whether, obey his commencement with ABC Company and keep confidentiality until they make it public, or to warn his brother, Owen (who lives in the neighborhood that would be affected) that his house would substantially depreciate and he may lose money if he does not sell the house now

As one maybe able to see based upon the case summary, many ethical issues can be determined from many points of views, including the employee’s, management’s, and consumers. However, one must be more acquainted with the understanding of an ethical issue, or problem, in order to better comprehend each point of view. Ethical issues, or problems, typically involve conflict of some sort, choosing between right, or desirable, or wrong, or undesirable, alternatives as the action. Typically, ethical issues, or dilemmas, are situations in which individuals must choose in order to do an option or not to do the option based upon a certain reasoning or framework. Many individuals think of ethical issues as moral dilemmas, or issues.

The ethical dilemma Bob faces in this case is a transaction that makes Bob question his and the company’s ethics and legal obligations. It’s February, business was slow, the company was $5,000 below their breakeven point, and it appeared as if a

There were two dilemmas presented in the ethics game .The first ethics dilemma was two employees Aaron and Jamal hacking into their company system. Both of the employees thought they were doing the right thing for different reasons. Aaron was hacking the company’s computer system because he felt that the company was hiding unethical practices that he felt the consumers who bought their product should know about. The second employee Jamal also felt the need or duty to hack in to the company’s computer system to prove who the person was that using sensitive material about the company in a blog.

During the Phaust Management’s presentation in the public hearing, an ethical responsibility that fell on the actual Phaust management group (i.e., Chuck and Wally) was presented. From the management’s perspective, Chuck and Wally had to have their ethical values put in question. In reference to their role responsibility – roles that delineate the obligations individuals create when they commit to a social or professional role (Frey) – Chuck and Wally had a major loyalty for Phaust, and in turn for Chemistré. If they were asked to cut their budgest by 20%, Chuck and Wally were going to act accordingly to what their superiors were asking of them. In not complying with their superiors’ wishes, Phaust Company would have been