Ethics play a crucial role in business. Often it is seen business professionals deviate from the ethical standards which lead to their fall. Hence, based on two given case studies and the four diagnostic tools an analysis will be done as to on the lessons learnt from the case studies while elaborating on the results of assessment through the diagnostic tools.
Thus, I will start the discussion with the very first case study named All Asia Airways which documents an ethical issue. The major lesson that we get from the case study is that deviation from ethics finally leads to fall. As stated by the case, Richard Change indulged into bribery for the sake of accelerating business profit. He arranged lavish parties, would give personal gifts to the people who were in power like the bureaucrats, ministers and so on. When the company needed to have permissions from the government for its business growth, the leader further engaged into arranging lavish conferences, personal parties and gifts so that the officials work in favor of him. Another ethical deviation according to my observation was that when the Surbanes’ Oxley and the Foreign Corrupt Practices act required the company to introduce and implement a code of conducts and to train its employees regarding ethical decision making while being aware of the law of United States government, Richard showed a reluctant behavior towards the legal terms. He preferred not to invest any more money on internal strategy development in order to make the employees learn about ethics.
The above mentioned ethical deviation of a leader according to my view point is extremely undesirable since a leader sets example before his employees and employees accordingly follow his footsteps. In my point of view Richard should have been given more ethical consideration in developing training programs in order to make the employees learn about maintenance of ethics instead of bribing the ministers and other officials for the purpose of business growth. Deviation from ethical considerations did not only prove Chang as an ineffective leader but also put other employees David Leong into trouble who was responsible for purchasing aircraft parts. The other employee in a leadership position of the company Graeme Rochford was another example of unethical leader in my point of view since he encouraged David to indulge in attending the parties that were given with the purpose of bribing. As a result, the David and the whole company faced legal obligation that could lead the company to lose its business license. Hence, I strongly disagree with such unethical behavior only for the sake profit generation.
While studying the other case named Gold and Diamond Watch, I had come across a wide range of characters that differed on their ethical considerations. For example while one preferred to choose being unethical, someone else preferred to be stick to their ethical and moral values. I would say the whole case has documented different character traits. The main character with ethical issue in my point of view was Ryan because in order get orders he indulged into bribing. He was easily manipulated by Abdul, a purchasing government officer. Abdul asked Ryan to give him a gift in order to get the order. As per my observation if Ryan was ethical he would instantly refuse the deal but instead he said he would try to do something. In addition to that, even after being rebuked by his boss Charles, he did not change his mind and went to Angus for second opinion. While Charles advised Ryan to indulge into bribing customers, Angus further more encouraged Ryan in proceeding ahead with bribing the customers. The whole consequence of the entire incident led Ryan to lose his job as Charles came to know about the incident of Ryan’s purchasing a luxury watch for a customer.
Hence, based on the case according to my consideration Ryan is the second most objectionable person since he was under influence of other two characters Abdul and Angus. Just in order to get the order and to elevate his occupational position, Ryan went too further without considering his low financial situations and bank debts he chose to buy the luxury to gift Abdul without even thinking that his action might lead to him to lose the job permanently. In the whole case, in my point of view, Abdul is the most objectionable person as he asked Ryan to give him commission. He deviated from the ethical values and indulged into asking for gifts as a means of bribe to fix the deal with Ryan. In my point of view, as a government official, Abdul should not have been indulged into those unethical practices. However, my observation positioned Charles as the least objectionable person since he did opt to being unethical even when one of his employees took personal initiative of bribing customer to get a deal. Instead he warned that employee Ryan to refrain from being unethical and indulge in practicing bribing. Hence in my view, Charles is the most ethical person among the all characters mentioned in the case. As per my viewpoint, Angus, friend of Ryan ranks as the third most objectionable person. When Ryan went to Angus for taking his opinion, instead of asking him to refrain from bribery, Angus supported and encouraged him to perform the unethical practice.
The third least objectionable person in my view is Grey Reason. He provided support to Ryan considering Ryan’s financial need. However, he was partly unethical as he agreed to sanction the loan even after he came to learn about Grey’s unethical decision of bribing his customer. Thus, I would consider him neutral while ranking as neither he was partly unethical nor he was partly unethical. On the other hand the second most little objectionable person in my view point is none but Jane Reason, wife of Grey Reason because as soon as he came to learn about Ryan’s purchasing of a luxury watch he soon informed Reason. He could have supported that but like Grey, her ethical and moral values drove her speak against wrong doings.
The assessment result through the first diagnostic tool suggests a mixed result in which partly my team members were right and partly I was right in drawing conclusion. In the case of tiger and the trainer and the armed robber my team members agreed with my point of view by holding the trainer and the robber responsible for the action. On the other hand, our opinions differ in cases of the young brother and father’s shot gun and capital punishment. While I think the father of the two brothers was responsible for the act, my team members agreed upon the two brothers as responsible. Similarly I think the capital punishment case was nothing but an accident, my other group members held the medical attendant responsible due to negligence. Hence, a difference between my team members and I were seen I terms of opinion.
As per the assessment tool 2, I possess high authentic leadership qualities which I consider as my greatest strength. However, as per the assessment results, I need to work on the areas of self awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing as relational transparency in order improve my ability of authentic leadership more keeping the future goals in mind.
According to the personal value assessment 3, it is seen that my economic value is highest than any other values which emphasizes on my practicality and particularity. While my theoretical value was the second highest projecting myself as result oriented and evaluation prone person, the aesthetic and social evaluations suggest my values related to aesthetics and relationship and other social aspects are moderate. Meanwhile as per the assessment with high rate of political values, I possess a desire to acquire power. However, the spiritual value scored least portraying me with less religious beliefs and other aspects of spirituality.
In the meantime, the diagnostic tool 4 evaluates my moral competency inventory ability. The result of this assessment states that I have moderate level of MCI which means some of my actions are synced with what beliefs and some of my actions do not sync with what I belief. Hence the assessment indicates that I need to work more to improve my MCI ability.
Thus in order to conclude it is apt to state that the whole discussion shed light on my personal attributes. The assessment tools helped to a greater extent in understanding my own strengths as well my weaknesses. For instance while I learnt that my authentic leadership qualities are high, I also came to know that I need to give more effort in developing my moral competency inventory ability. The case studies on the other hand, benefitted me in obtaining knowledge regarding ethics and why should one maintain his or her ethical values. Moreover, the assessments and the case studies had given me great opportunities of acquiring knowledge.