MISY 5103: Management Information Systems Fall 2023 Assignme

MISY 5103: Management Information Systems FALL 2023 Assignment 2

Review the Chapter 6 Ethics Guide “ERP Estimation” and answer the following questions:

Q1. Was Todd ethical in his actions? Use both the categorical imperative and utilitarianism in your answer (minimum 1 page).

Q2. What would you do if you were Todd’s boss? How does this change your management of Todd in the future? (minimum 1 page).

Q3. What is the difference between inappropriate rationalization and justification? Provide examples to justify your answer (minimum 1 page).

Q4. Do you agree with Todd’s last statement? Does a good result always indicate a good process or a good decision? Justify your answer (minimum 1 page).

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding Todd's actions in the ERP estimation case provide a compelling exploration into professional integrity and moral decision-making within the context of management information systems. To analyze Todd’s behavior comprehensively, it is essential to apply two fundamental ethical frameworks: Kant’s categorical imperative and consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism. These tools offer contrasting perspectives—one rooted in duty and universal principles, the other in outcomes and overall welfare—to evaluate whether Todd's actions can be deemed ethical.

Firstly, from Kant’s perspective, the categorical imperative emphasizes acting according to maxims that one would will to become universal laws, and treating individuals as ends rather than means. Todd’s actions—possibly manipulating ERP estimates to influence project decisions—raise questions about whether his motives could be universalized without contradiction and whether he respected the dignity of all stakeholders involved. If Todd’s decision was driven by selfish motives or a desire to cover up inaccuracies, this would violate Kantian ethics because it treats organizational policies and stakeholders merely as means to personal or departmental ends. Conversely, if his motive was to serve a greater organizational good while maintaining honesty, his actions might be deemed ethical.

On the other hand, utilitarianism assesses the morality of Todd's actions based on the consequences—specifically, whether his actions resulted in the greatest good for the greatest number. If Todd’s deception led to beneficial outcomes such as improved project stakeholder confidence or organizational success, and these benefits outweighed the potential harms like loss of trust or legal repercussions, then his actions might be justified. However, if the deception caused more harm—such as eroding stakeholder trust, diminishing organizational integrity, or setting a dangerous precedent—they would be deemed unethical.

In synthesizing these perspectives, Todd’s actions appear ethically questionable if they involve intentional misrepresentation or breach of trust. While the utilitarian viewpoint might tolerate some deception if overall outcomes are positive, the Kantian approach strongly condemns any intentional violation of moral duty and respect for persons.

If I were Todd’s boss, I would address his behavior by first understanding his motives and the context behind his decisions. It is crucial to foster an organizational culture emphasizing ethical integrity over short-term gains. I would initiate a conversation with Todd to explore alternative, honest solutions that align with organizational goals while maintaining ethical standards. Additionally, I would implement training on ethics and decision-making, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability.

Managing Todd further would involve setting clear expectations about ethical conduct, coupled with consistent consequences for breaches. Encouraging open dialogue where employees can voice ethical dilemmas without fear of retaliation would be vital. If Todd’s actions reflect a pattern of unethical behavior, more stringent measures might be necessary, including reevaluation of his role or providing ethical mentorship to correct his course.

The distinction between irrational rationalization and justification is pivotal in understanding ethical decision-making. Rationalization is the process of deploying seemingly logical reasons to justify questionable actions, often to avoid guilt or accountability—this is irrational when the reasons are based on flawed premises. Justification, however, involves rationally explaining and defending an action based on valid reasoning rooted in moral principles or societal norms.

For example, rationalization might involve a student cheating on an exam and convincing themselves that "everyone does it," to avoid guilt—a flawed reasoning that attempts to disguise unethical behavior. A justification, in contrast, would be explaining that cheating is necessary in an unfair system to level the playing field—an argument that can be critically analyzed based on the context and ethical considerations. Recognizing the difference helps prevent rationalizations that distort moral judgment.

Regarding Todd’s last statement, whether a good result always indicates a good process or decision is debatable. While successful outcomes often reinforce the belief that the approach was sound, they do not inherently validate the ethical or procedural integrity of the process. History provides numerous examples of outcomes achieved through unethical means—such as fraudulent financial reports or deceptive marketing—that ultimately damage trust and sustainability. Good results can sometimes stem from unethical shortcuts or flawed decision-making, leading to short-term gains but long-term repercussions.

Therefore, I do not wholly agree that a good result always signifies a good process or decision. Ethical decision-making emphasizes not only the outcomes but also adherence to moral principles, transparency, and fairness during the process. An outcome achieved through deception or coercion is fundamentally problematic, regardless of the final benefit. Thus, sustainable, ethical success requires aligning results with good decision-making processes grounded in integrity.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Johnson, C. E. (2019). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership. SAGE Publications.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (Trans. H.J. Paton). Harper & Row, 1964.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn, West Strand.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices. HarperCollins.
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important? NIH Office of Extramural Research.
• Schmidt, M. (2020). Management Ethics: Integrity and Fairness in Business. Routledge.
• Velasquez, M., & Shrader, M. (2018). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
• Werhane, P. H. (2012). Moral Imagination and Management Decision-Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(1), 45–52.