Read Chapter Five And The Ethical Dilemma About Steven ✓ Solved

Read Chapter Five and the Ethical Dilemma about Steven and t

Read Chapter Five and the Ethical Dilemma about Steven and the fast food restaurant. Apply the Ferrell Decision Making Model to the situation, including a conclusion. The Ferrell Model has four component parts; provide at least five paragraphs (one for each component and a conclusion) and include all relevant sub-parts/factors for each component.

Paper For Above Instructions

Context and Assumptions

Because the specific text of the Ethical Dilemma was not provided, this analysis assumes a commonly used fast-food ethical scenario: Steven is a front-line employee who observes management instructing staff to serve food that is past documented hold times and to hide these practices from corporate auditors to avoid waste costs. This situation raises safety, legal, and integrity concerns relevant to the Ferrell Decision Making Model, which aligns with the four-component framework of ethical awareness, ethical judgment, ethical intention, and ethical behavior (Ferrell et al., 2019; Rest, 1986). The following analysis applies the Ferrell model systematically and identifies stakeholders, relevant facts, ethical theories, organizational pressures, and recommended actions.

1. Ethical Awareness (Recognizing the Ethical Issue)

The first component requires recognizing that an ethical issue exists. Key factors include moral sensitivity, issue intensity, and stakeholder identification (Ferrell et al., 2019; Jones, 1991). In Steven’s case, serving food beyond safe holding times involves customer health risks, potential regulatory violations, and deception of auditors and customers. This increases moral intensity due to potential harm to vulnerable stakeholders (customers) and legal risk for the firm (Jones, 1991). Steven must identify facts: which items are affected, how long they are past safe limits, who authorized the practice, and whether any policies or laws (e.g., local health codes, company food-safety policies) are being violated. He should also note social pressures—fear of job loss, normative expectations in the store, and possible retaliation—that can cloud awareness (Trevino & Nelson, 2017). Recognizing competing values (cost-savings vs. consumer safety) sets the stage for judgment.

2. Ethical Judgment (Evaluating Alternatives and Making Moral Judgment)

After awareness, Steven must judge the right course of action. Ethical judgment involves applying moral frameworks (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics), legal constraints, and organizational codes (Ferrell et al., 2019; Velasquez et al., 2015). A consequentialist view emphasizes preventing harm to customers and avoiding reputational and legal consequences for the firm—supporting immediate cessation of the practice and disclosure. A deontological perspective stresses duties: the firm and employees have a duty to protect consumer safety and to honestly report practices (Kerns, 2003). Virtue ethics focuses on integrity and courage; a morally courageous employee should act to protect others despite risk. Steven should consider alternatives: 1) do nothing, 2) confront the manager privately, 3) report to corporate or health authorities anonymously, or 4) refuse to follow the practice and escalate. He must evaluate outcomes (harm mitigation, retaliation risk), obligations (to customers, to employer), and precedent for organizational improvement. Stakeholder analysis (customers, coworkers, management, corporate, regulators) should weigh heavily in judgment (Donaldson & Werhane, 2002).

3. Ethical Intention (Deciding to Act)

Intention translates judgment into commitment to act; it is influenced by moral motivation, personal values, and organizational culture (Ferrell et al., 2019; Treviño, 1986). Steven’s intention will depend on his prioritization of ethical values over personal risk. If the organizational ethical climate rewards compliance with short-term targets over safety, moral disengagement is more likely (Kaptein, 2008). To strengthen ethical intention, Steven can seek allies (coworkers who share concerns), document evidence (dates, times, items), and identify safe reporting channels (corporate hotline, external health authority). He might also consider whistleblower protections and company policies that protect reporters (Boatright, 2012). A concrete intention could be: “I will first raise the issue with the store manager in writing; if not resolved within 48 hours, I will report to corporate HR and the local health department.” This staged intention balances responsibility and prudence while prioritizing stakeholder safety (Ferrell et al., 2019).

4. Ethical Behavior (Implementing the Decision and Following Through)

Behavior is the execution of ethical intention in real-world conditions and involves strategy, communication, and perseverance (Ferrell et al., 2019; Rest, 1986). Steven must convert intention into action by documenting observations (dates, photos where lawful), communicating concerns clearly and professionally, and using formal channels. If confronting the manager, he should present facts and cite company policy and health standards, thereby reducing personal attack dynamics and focusing on compliance. If escalation is required, follow company reporting processes and, if necessary, external regulatory channels. Anticipate and prepare for potential retaliation; keep evidence and know legal protections (Kerns, 2003). Ethical behavior also includes following up to ensure corrective action and supporting colleagues who may fear consequences. Implementing corrective measures not only protects customers but can also prompt organizational learning and culture change (Kaptein, 2008).

Conclusion

Applying the Ferrell Decision Making Model to Steven’s fast-food dilemma reveals a clear ethical imperative: protect customer safety, uphold legal and organizational duties, and act transparently. Awareness identifies the harm and stakeholders; judgment favors actions that prevent harm and honor duties; intention must prioritize moral motivation supported by documentation and allies; behavior requires practical, staged actions using internal and external reporting mechanisms. Taken together, Steven should document the violations, address the manager with evidence, report to corporate if unresolved, and contact health authorities if necessary—while using protections available to whistleblowers. This course aligns with ethical theories and organizational best practices and aims to minimize harm while encouraging systemic change (Ferrell et al., 2019; Treviño & Nelson, 2017).

References

• Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2019). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. Cengage Learning.
• Rest, J. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Praeger.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. Wiley.
• Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.
• Boatright, J. R. (2012). Ethics and the Conduct of Business. Pearson.
• Velasquez, M. G., et al. (2015). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
• Kerns, C. D. (2003). Creating and sustaining an ethical workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 47–66.
• Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 923–947.
• Donaldson, T., & Werhane, P. H. (Eds.). (2002). Philosophical Issues in Business Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Bowie, N. E. (1999). Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. Blackwell Publishers.