Personal Ethical Dilemma Mini-Analysis: Identify An Ethical ✓ Solved

Personal Ethical Dilemma Mini-Analysis: Identify an ethical

Personal Ethical Dilemma Mini-Analysis: Identify an ethical dilemma you experienced in the workplace and analyze it. Briefly describe the dilemma using values language; identify the values in conflict and explain how they conflict; explain how these values relate to your personal values. Choose one prescriptive ethical decision-making framework (consequentialist, deontological, or virtue ethics) and apply it to your dilemma: Consequentialist — identify at least five stakeholders and the harms and benefits for each, map stakeholders and options, state the recommended decision and evaluate its impact on society; Deontological — explain applicable duties, rights, obligations, principles, explain what the Golden Rule would recommend, what Kant’s categorical imperative would prescribe, and what Rawls’ veil of ignorance would recommend; Virtue Ethics — explain your motivations and intentions, identify the relevant ethical community for assessing integrity, apply the disclosure rule with a hypothetical news headline, and identify an ethical role model or harshest critic and their likely advice. Conclude by explaining what you learned from this analysis, whether using the framework raised new issues, what you now think about your action, and whether you would act differently in the future and why.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and Dilemma Description

While working as a project coordinator at a mid-sized consulting firm, I discovered that a close colleague had been inflating billable hours on a large client engagement over several months. The colleague argued that the client expected deliverables beyond the stated scope, and that submitting higher hours helped the team meet hidden expectations. The ethical dilemma centers on whether to report the falsified hours to management (whistleblowing) or to protect the colleague and team cohesion by staying silent. This conflict can be framed in values language as honesty and responsibility to the employer versus loyalty and compassion toward a colleague.

Values in Conflict and Relation to Personal Values

The primary values in conflict are:

• Honesty and integrity: obligation to report truthful records and follow contractual terms (Boatright, 2012).
• Fidelity and loyalty: desire to support a colleague and preserve team trust (Treviño & Nelson, 2017).
• Fairness and justice: fairness to other teams and to the client who pays only for legitimate work (Freeman, 1984).
• Professional responsibility: duty to the employer and to ethical business practices (Velasquez, 2012).

Personally, I value honesty and fairness highly; I also value compassion. The tension was between my commitment to truthfulness and my empathy for a colleague who felt pressured. My personal value orientation leaned toward transparency and upholding professional norms (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013), but I was concerned about negative consequences for the colleague and the team.

Chosen Framework: Consequentialist Analysis

I applied a consequentialist (utilitarian) framework to evaluate options by weighing harms and benefits across key stakeholders and selecting the action that maximizes overall well-being (Mill, 1863; Bentham, as discussed in modern treatments). I identified five primary stakeholders and assessed harms and benefits for each.

Stakeholders and Harms/Benefits

• Client (the paying organization): Benefits if accurate billing ensures value-for-money and trust; Harm if overcharged or trust is violated, leading to reputational or financial damage (Freeman, 1984).
• Colleague who falsified hours: Short-term benefit of avoided discipline and maintained income; long-term harm if discovered—career damage, loss of license/reputation (Treviño & Nelson, 2017).
• Team members and coworkers: Benefit of short-term project success and cohesion; harm of compromised morale, possible complicity, and future mistrust if misconduct surfaces (Velasquez, 2012).
• Employer/firm: Benefit in the short run of higher billed revenue; harm in legal and reputational costs, client loss, and erosion of ethical culture if misconduct is uncovered (Boatright, 2012).
• Public/professional community: Benefit when firms act transparently and uphold standards; harm when norms erode and clients lose confidence in the profession (Freeman, 1984; Treviño & Nelson, 2017).

Options Mapped

I considered three primary options: (A) Report the falsified hours to management immediately; (B) Confront the colleague privately and encourage voluntary correction; (C) Remain silent to protect the colleague and team.

Consequentialist "Bottom Line" Calculation and Decision

Evaluating net consequences: Option A (report) likely imposes immediate harm on the colleague (discipline or termination) but protects the client, preserves firm integrity, deters future misconduct, and maintains long-term trust—benefits to more stakeholders over time (Mill, 1863). Option B (private confrontation) reduces direct harm to the colleague if they correct records, but risks insufficient remediation if the colleague refuses. Option C (silence) protects the colleague short-term but risks significant harm across more and larger stakeholders if discovered later (Bok, 1978; Velasquez, 2012).

From a utilitarian perspective, Option A produces the greatest aggregate good: it protects clients, maintains ethical standards, and reduces systemic harm. Therefore, I recommended reporting the misconduct to management while documenting evidence and requesting confidentiality protections. The societal impact includes reinforcing norms of accountability, reducing incentive for dishonest practices, and protecting consumers and the professional community (Boatright, 2012; Freeman, 1984).

Implementation and Mitigating Harms

To reduce harm to the colleague and team, I recommended that management pursue a restorative approach: investigate promptly, allow the colleague to explain and to remediate by correcting invoices, and apply proportionate disciplinary measures accompanied by training and counseling. This approach aligns utilitarian aims with compassionate mitigation, balancing deterrence with rehabilitation (Treviño & Nelson, 2017).

Reflections: Lessons Learned and Future Action

Applying consequentialist analysis raised considerations I had not fully weighed emotionally: the broader ripple effects of silence can be far worse than the immediate interpersonal harm of reporting. The framework clarified that short-term loyalty can produce larger long-term harms to clients, colleagues, and the profession (Mill, 1863; Freeman, 1984). I learned that ethical decision making benefits from structured stakeholder mapping and considering institutional remedies that reduce collateral damage.

Would I act differently in the future? Yes. I would document concerns carefully, seek informal advice from a trusted supervisor or ethics officer, encourage remediation, and escalate when voluntary correction fails. I would also advocate for stronger organizational controls (clear billing policies, audit processes, and safe reporting channels) to prevent recurrence (Velasquez, 2012; Treviño & Nelson, 2017).

Conclusion

This mini-analysis shows that, when facing conflicts between honesty and loyalty, a consequentialist approach helps reveal which action yields the greatest overall good. Reporting the falsified hours—coupled with efforts to mitigate harm and encourage remediation—best balanced the interests of stakeholders and upheld professional norms. The exercise reinforced my commitment to transparency while informing practical steps to handle similar dilemmas more effectively in the future.

References

1. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
2. Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. Vintage Books.
3. Boatright, J. R. (2012). Ethics and the Conduct of Business (7th ed.). Pearson.
4. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing.
5. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn/Modern reprints.
6. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
7. Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How to Do It Right (7th ed.). Wiley.
8. Velasquez, M. (2012). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (7th ed.). Pearson.
9. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (H. J. Paton, Trans.). Harper & Row.
10. Aristotle. (c. 350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics. (W. D. Ross, Trans.; modern eds.). Oxford University Press.