The Housing Allowance Please Respond To The Following

The Housing Allowance Please Respond To The Following In The Case

The case study involves Wilson Mutambara, who faces conflicting obligations to his employer, his family, and his hometown. The assignment requires a determination of whether Wilson Mutambara abused his company's housing allowance policy, supported by ethical theories such as egoism, utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, or other nonconsequentialist frameworks. Additionally, the case examines Dale Garman’s actions as whistle-blowing. It asks for an analysis, based on criteria from the text, of whether Garman was justified in revealing Mutambara’s misrepresentation to his employer, and what alternative steps Garman could have taken upon discovering the deception.

Paper For Above instruction

The case involving Wilson Mutambara presents a complex ethical dilemma rooted in conflicting obligations. Mutambara’s situation requires a balanced ethical analysis to determine whether his actions constituted an abuse of his company's housing allowance policy. Moreover, Garman's role as a whistleblower warrants a thorough examination, especially concerning the justification and potential alternatives for his actions.

Analysis of Wilson Mutambara’s Use of Housing Allowance

Wilson Mutambara’s dilemma arises from his desire to fulfill conflicting responsibilities: supporting his family and hometown while adhering to the policies of his employer. Ethical theories provide different perspectives on whether Mutambara’s conduct was justified or constitutes an abuse. From an egoist perspective, Mutambara’s actions might be justified if they serve his personal best interests, such as providing for his family or achieving personal satisfaction, even if they breach company policy. Egoism emphasizes self-interest, and if Mutambara believed that his use of the allowance was necessary for his well-being or that of his family, he might rationalize his decision as ethically permissible (Rand, 1964).

In contrast, utilitarianism assesses actions based on their consequences for overall happiness or well-being. If Mutambara’s misuse of the allowance results in greater harm than good—such as financial losses for the company or unfair advantages—then his behavior could be considered unethical under this framework. Conversely, if his actions ultimately facilitated his family’s stability without significantly harming others, a utilitarian might justify his behavior. However, if the misuse leads to broader negative consequences, such as damaging trust or encouraging policy violations, then it would be deemed unethical.

Kantian ethics emphasizes duty and adherence to moral rules beyond consequences. Kantian perspectives would likely oppose Mutambara’s breach of policy if it involves dishonesty or deception. Kant’s categorical imperative demands acting according to principles one would want universally applied. If everyone misused allowances similarly, the integrity of the policy system would collapse, undermining trust and fairness. Therefore, from this perspective, Mutambara’s behavior would be unethical if it involved knowingly violating established rules (Kant, 1785).

Assessment of Dale Garman’s Whistle-blowing

Dale Garman’s decision to disclose Mutambara’s misrepresentation can be classified as whistle-blowing. Ethical criteria for justified whistle-blowing include the duty to report misconduct to prevent harm, the actor’s motives, and the availability of alternative actions. According to the text, whistle-blowing is justified when there is evidence of serious wrongdoing that could harm stakeholders, and when internal channels have been exhausted or are ineffective (Near & Miceli, 1985).

Garman’s actions appear justified if the misrepresentation posed significant ethical or financial risks to the company, and if internal whistle-blowing mechanisms were inadequate or unavailable. By exposing the deception, Garman may have aimed to uphold fairness and integrity within the organization. However, potential repercussions for Mutambara, the company, or Garman himself should also be considered. If the misconduct was minor or the disclosure risked unnecessary harm, then Garman’s actions might be viewed as unjustified.

Alternative and Additional Steps for Garman

Instead of immediate disclosure, Garman could have first addressed his concerns through internal channels, such as reporting the issue confidentially to a supervisor or ethics committee. Engaging in dialogue might have resolved the issue without public exposure, preserving confidentiality and relationships (Trevino & Nelson, 2016). If internal procedures failed or were compromised, Garman might seek external advice from regulatory bodies, ethics advisory groups, or professional associations. Documenting evidence and consulting colleagues could also provide support for his claims.

Furthermore, Garman could advocate for clearer policies and training emphasizing ethical conduct and reporting mechanisms. Such proactive measures would help prevent similar instances in the future and promote an organizational culture of honesty and accountability.

Conclusion

Wilson Mutambara’s potential misuse of his housing allowance exemplifies the tension between personal obligations and organizational policies. Ethical frameworks such as egoism, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics offer differing viewpoints, but collectively suggest that honesty and adherence to agreed rules are fundamental principles. Garman’s whistle-blowing serves as a moral response to misconduct, justified especially when aligned with stakeholder protection and organizational integrity. Nevertheless, alternative steps, including internal reporting and ethical advocacy, can strengthen organizational ethics and prevent similar conflicts.

References:

Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1-16.

Rand, A. (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness. New American Library.

Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2016). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. Wiley.