Describe The Ethical Dilemma Peter Faced ✓ Solved

Describe, specifically, the ethical dilemma that Peter faced.

Describe, specifically, the ethical dilemma that Peter faced. What virtues did Peter need to act as he did? What do you think motivated him? What were the risks Peter faced in making this decision? What factors assist people in making moral decisions under great pressure?

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This analysis reconstructs a plausible, specific ethical dilemma faced by "Peter"—a mid-level manager who discovered that his firm’s sales team had been prematurely recognizing revenue to meet quarterly targets. The case is common in business-ethics teaching and exemplifies tensions between organizational pressure and moral responsibility (Treviño & Nelson, 2016). The discussion identifies the dilemma, the virtues required, likely motivations, the risks Peter confronted, and the situational and personal factors that support moral decision-making under pressure.

Specific Ethical Dilemma

Peter learns that the sales department has been booking revenue for pending contracts that have not yet met the company’s contractual delivery or acceptance criteria. This practice artificially inflates quarterly earnings, misleads investors and other stakeholders, and contravenes accounting standards and internal policy. Peter must decide whether to report the practice through internal channels, escalate to senior leadership or external regulators, or remain silent to avoid jeopardizing his team’s performance metrics and his own standing within the company. The dilemma pits competing obligations: loyalty to colleagues and job security versus fidelity to truthful reporting, legal compliance, and duty to stakeholders (Miceli & Near, 1992; Velasquez, 2012).

Virtues Required

Acting appropriately required a cluster of classical and contemporary virtues. First, integrity—consistency between Peter’s values and actions—was central (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics; Velasquez, 2012). Second, moral courage was necessary to confront powerful interests and accept personal risk (Kidder, 1995). Third, prudence or practical wisdom (phronesis) enabled Peter to evaluate consequences, choose channels for disclosure, and time his action strategically (Rest, 1986). Fourth, justice and fairness called for protecting broader stakeholder interests, not only internal relationships. Finally, honesty and responsibility—owning the moral dimension of the discovery and taking appropriate corrective steps—were essential virtues (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1999).

Probable Motivations

Peter’s motivations likely combined personal moral identity and professional duties. A commitment to ethical standards and self-conception as a moral actor can drive whistleblowing even when costly (Miceli & Near, 1992). Professional duty—fiduciary responsibility to investors, clients, and co-workers—also creates motivation to correct systemic wrongdoing (Treviño & Nelson, 2016). Intrinsic motivations (e.g., commitment to honesty) often interact with extrinsic considerations: preserving the long-term reputation of the company, avoiding legal exposure, and protecting vulnerable stakeholders harmed by misleading reporting (Velasquez, 2012; Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Risks Faced by Peter

Reporting the misconduct entailed tangible and intangible risks. Tangible risks included job loss, demotion, negative performance reviews, and stalled career progression—outcomes documented in whistleblowing studies (Miceli & Near, 1992). He also faced social retaliation: ostracism, strained relationships, and damaged professional networks (Miceli & Near, 1992; Treviño & Nelson, 2016). Legal and financial risks could follow if the firm responded by assigning blame or initiating litigation, and psychological harms—stress and anxiety—were likely (Kidder, 1995). Conversely, remaining silent posed moral and legal risks: personal complicity, damage to reputation if later exposed, and potential legal liability if he had a duty to report (Velasquez, 2012).

Factors That Assist Moral Decision-Making Under Pressure

Several organizational and personal factors help individuals like Peter make morally sound decisions when under intense pressure:

  • Ethical organizational climate: Firms with clear ethical norms, active leadership modeling, and consistent enforcement reduce perceived costs of ethical action (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Treviño & Nelson, 2016).
  • Clear reporting channels and protections: Confidential hotlines, ombudspersons, and robust whistleblower protections (legal and internal) increase willingness to report wrongdoing (Miceli & Near, 1992; OECD, 2016; SEC, 2011).
  • Training and ethical frameworks: Decision-making frameworks (e.g., Kidder’s right-versus-right analysis; ethical risk assessments) help structure reasoning under stress (Kidder, 1995).
  • Social support and moral exemplars: Mentors, ethical leaders, and supportive peers provide courage and practical guidance (Brown & Treviño, 2006).
  • Personal moral development and identity: Prior ethical reflection, moral education, and a secure moral identity improve consistency of ethical action (Rest, 1986).
  • Transparent incentives and accountability: Reducing unavoidable pressures to manipulate results—such as unrealistic targets—limits the frequency of dilemmas and makes ethical choices less fraught (Treviño & Nelson, 2016).

Recommended Practical Steps for Peter

To act prudently and ethically, Peter should document the evidence and timeline, consult company policy and legal counsel (or an ombudsperson), seek confidential advice from a trusted mentor or ethics officer, and use established internal reporting channels first if safe (Miceli & Near, 1992; Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, n.d.). If internal routes fail and the misconduct is material, external reporting to regulators may be morally justified and legally protected under whistleblower statutes (SEC, 2011; OECD, 2016).

Conclusion

Peter’s dilemma—a choice between silence and reporting deceptive revenue recognition—illustrates the clash between organizational pressure and ethical responsibility. Acting well required integrity, moral courage, prudence, and a commitment to justice. Motivations blended personal moral identity, professional duty, and concern for stakeholders. The risks included retaliation, career damage, and psychological stress, while supportive factors—ethical climate, clear protections, training, and social support—can significantly enable morally defensible decisions under pressure. Organizations that cultivate these enabling structures not only protect individuals like Peter but also sustain long-term ethical performance and stakeholder trust (Treviño & Nelson, 2016; Brown & Treviño, 2006).

References

  • Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. (Translated editions). (Referencing classical account of virtue ethics.)
  • Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Kidder, R. M. (1995). How Good People Make Tough Choices. HarperCollins.
  • Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University. (n.d.). Business ethics resources. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/
  • Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal Implications. Lexington Books.
  • OECD. (2016). Committing to effective whistleblower protection. OECD Publishing.
  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
  • SEC. (2011). The Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower Program (Securities and Exchange Commission guidance and rules).
  • Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2016). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. Wiley.
  • Velasquez, M. G. (2012). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.

Related Assignments