Ralph B. Potter Box

It is important to look at ethical dilemmas in a systematic way, thus increasing the chance of achieving a solution that gives the best possible outcome. An ethical problem solving model taken from American sources (Paradise and Siegelwaks, 1982; Austin et al., 1990) was used to develop a six-step process to follow, in order to achieve this (Bond 2010, pg. 227). This process informs this paper, and I am in the role of counsellor.

Making sound ethical decisions require an intentional process that utilizes thoughtful reflection, supervision/consultation, and action. Many ethical decision making models exist and the seven-step model introduced by Forester-Miller and Davis (1996) is a succinct amalgamation of these earlier models. The model by Forester-Miller and Davis (1996) follows seven progressive steps: (a) identify the problem, (b) apply the ACA Code of Ethics (2014), (c) determine the nature and dimensions of the dilemma, (d) generate potential courses of action, (e) consider the potential consequences of all options and determine a course of action, (f) evaluate the selected course of action, and (g) implement the course of action.

When a person is loyal, they show allegiance to someone or an idea. An excellent example of a loyal character can be found in, “The King of Mazy May.” Walt Masters shows loyalty by protecting his neighbor’s land, even when it meant risking his own life. “Walt lay in the snow, thinking rapidly. He was only a boy, but in the face of the threatened injustice against old lame Loren Hall he felt that he must do something. He waited and watched, with his mind made up, till he saw the men began to square up new stakes. Then he crawled away till out of hearing, and broke into a run for the camp of the stampeders.” Walt shows his allegiance to his neighbor even in dangerous circumstances which is the definition of loyalty.

In order to make ethical decisions, it is helpful to think about several questions, including: 1) who will be impacted by the decision, 2) who will benefit from the decision, and 3) who will suffer from the decision.

Being loyal is to have a strong feeling of support or allegiance for someone or something.

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

The Ethics Game Simulation is a tool created to teach how the decision-making process affects various stakeholders, and the ethical value of the decision determinations. Business organizations have encountered new challenges of ethical awareness with the increased globalization of industries and markets. People of many cultures, social statuses, and religions are joined in various business opportunities and projects via the World Wide Web. Core values of many companies must consider general humanity as the employee versus specific geographic regions of people and societies.

Ethical decision making frameworks share similar guiding principles, however there are differences among how they guide the decision maker through the process. The Badaracco Model, Markkula Model, and the Nash 12 Questions Model use a set of questions that the decision maker must work through to solve the ethical dilemma. The three models share themes of asking the decision maker to identify the ethical dilemma, and to look at other perspectives and alternatives. The Servant Leadership Model is different from the other three models in several ways. While the other three approach guided a decision maker through a process the Servant Leadership model focuses more on being a servant. The other models utilize ethical standards to help think through the decision but allow the user to use different approaches. Under the Servant Leadership Model there is only one ethical standard to implement.

Potter box is a four step process: 1.) Understanding the facts 2.) Outlining the values inherent in the decision 3.) Applying relevant philosophical principles 4.) Articulating loyalties. When looking from a public relations professionals stand point and having to come out with a news release. Using potter box would be a way to ethical judge a story to be released or not. First, I would start with the facts getting the full story and ethically thinking what needs to be printed. Second, loyalties because in PR truth to you and your jobs ethical values are your main concerns. Third, value because it’s about being truthful and thinking about keeping my job, telling the full detailed truth, and if needed invading privacy of the person

Individual ethics refer to the ability to differentiate what is right from what is wrong. This may entail personal values, norms and beliefs. The influence of individual beliefs and values as well as the values of the coworkers has a great impact on an individual’s decision making (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell, 2006). While some organizations encourage their employees to come up with ethical choices, other organizations lead to promotion of immoral conduct within their employees. There is an assumption that many people make choices which are grounded on their personal values and beliefs. According to social scientists, there are various factors that influence ethical decision making, and individual factors are among the significant factors to consider.

In this case Jake Markos is the moral agent and is contemplating on whether or not he should embed spyware into the Diabetes Foundation website that allows his company, ALAC marketing, to collet email addresses and use them to market a product. Other moral agents presented in this case are Nathan Brook, Jake’s boss, Maia Herrick, Nathan’s assistant manager, and ALAC Marketing. In this case, ALAC is the least important moral agent because it possess vicarious moral sensitivity and responsiveness thus, if we examine the sensitivity and responsiveness of its individual employees we would understand ALAC’s position regarding Jake’s dilemma. This is also, in part, due to the fact that corporations employ highly organized holistic decision-making and although corporations are morally accountable it does not mean that individuals who are employed by the corporation are not also morally accountable.

Making consistently ethical decisions is difficult. Most decisions have to be made in the context of economic, professional and social pressures, which can sometimes challenge our ethical goals and conceal or confuse the moral issues. In addition, making ethical choices is complex because in many situations there are a multitude of competing interests and values. Other times, crucial facts are unknown or ambiguous. Since many actions are likely to benefit some people at the expense of others, the decision maker must prioritize competing moral claims and must be proficient at predicting the likely consequences of various choices. An ethical person often chooses to do more than the law requires and less than the law allows.

In the article Ethical foundations and perspectives by C.G. Christians, the Potter Box method of making ethical decisions as designed by Dr. Potter’s suggests that there are “explicit steps and by using the model components to every ethical dilemma; facts, values, ethics/principles, loyalties a person can more clearly see all sides before making the decision and action plans” (Christians, 2013, p.3).

All employees (including the company executives) should be guided by moral principles and ethical values when making decisions (Balc & Simionescu, 2012). The ability of executives to make ethical decisions can be influenced by their cognitive bias (Zeni, Buckley, Mumford & Griffith, 2015). Utilitarianism is one of the frameworks that can be used to address ethical dilemmas. Utilitarianism holds that decision makers should take alternatives that maximize the happiness of the majority of the stakeholders (Choe & Min, 2011 and Marques, 2015). This presentation will discuss how the 8-step ethical decision making process can be applied when addressing a dilemma using the utilitarianism framework. The presentation will also guide the executives of Toyota on how to address the negative publicity associated with the production of cars with faulty acceleration system.

Individual factors helps to understand the reason for some people perceive specific action to be unethical whiles others do not. However, the decision-making cannot simply be explained in terms of these individual factors, because after all several people seems to have ‘multiple ethical selves’ (Trevino and Nelson 2007:180) – that is, they make different decisions in different situations. Situational factors accepted to be the most important.