Running head: Ethics in Business 1

Ethics in Business

Student Name

Professor’s University

University Name

27th January 2021

Question 1 2
 Ethics in Business 2

Question 2 3

Question 3 4

Question 4 5

Question 5 6

References 7

Question 1

In a situation such as this one, four moral frames of ethics can be applied. First is the

utilitarian approach which says that the ends justify the means, that is, the result always

justifies the action (Ferrell et al., 2019). In other words, it does not matter what we do as

long as the end is good and we did everything necessary to reach that end. Supporters of this
 Ethics in Business 3

view think all moral arguments and considerations can be reduced to matters of utility, which

they define as pleasure and pain. There was very little positive impact from the action taken

by Google. If the utilitarian approach is followed then it can be said that the action was

unethical as it resulted in protests and controversies. The second moral standing can be from

a deontological viewpoint. A deontological theory is an ethical framework that decides what

is good based on the motives behind an action and not the outcomes it ends up producing.

This theory is often known as duty-based or rule-based ethics, meaning it focuses on doing

one's duty and following a certain set of rules. Deontologists believe that individual rights are

dependent upon the existence of certain moral rules. These moral rules are unconditional, in

the sense that if followed they will always result in a good outcome. If a person violates the

rules then she must face consequences for her actions. It is because of these rules that we can

expect co-operation from one another, so society at large does not fall apart. Here the central

idea of ethics is duty and respect for one another (Purwanto et al., 2019). From this

viewpoint, it can be said that the action Google took considering the circumstances was their

duty, as the memo stereotyped gender and disrespected others working in the office. This

action was ethical from this point of view. The third moral standing can be from the

viewpoint of virtues. As the name suggests this ethical idea hold virtue at its centre (De

Bakker et al., 2019). It focuses on the value of the act performed; whether the act has risen to

the values of virtue. The guiding principle of virtue ethics is that what makes an action good

is its inherent moral spirit. In contrast to utilitarianism, actions are morally charged for the

sake of this spirit alone. Thus, actions are judged upon the basis of how well they express

their virtuous qualities. By its logic, if an action adheres to the principles of justice or honesty

in the situations it was performed in, then the action is a virtuous one. In this case, it can be

seen that Google had fired that employee because he criticized Google decision and did so by

shaming other people. So, Google firing him shows that the company upheld their values of
 Ethics in Business 4

virtue as they did not tolerate any disrespect against their employees. This act was ethical.

The fourth moral standing is from the viewpoint of communitarian ethics. Here the morality

of a person depends on the communities they live in or participate in (Sroka & Szántó, 2018).

In communitarian ethics, morality is a social matter and the moral responsibility of an

individual depends upon his or her participation in the community. In other words, the

individual should understand himself or herself as an integral part of a group such as family,

school, ethnic group or religious organization. The fact of belonging to a group brings

burdens and responsibilities that can be considered moral obligations regarding one's

behaviour towards the community they belong to, especially when these consist of helping to

achieve common goals. Here the person disrespected the workplace of Google with his

memo, so it can be said that what Google did was ethical as they upheld the value of their

community.

Question 2

Yes, if I were Pichai, I would have made the same decision. The first ethical

framework to justify the action is that of virtue. To perform an act with virtue is to do it for

the sake of the final act alone, and not because of some expected gain or reward. Virtue ethics

is a teleological ethical theory stating that the moral status of an action depends on whether it

is virtuous. It may be thought of as a form of consequentialism, since both focus on the

outcome or consequences of actions, with virtue ethics additionally taking into account the

virtues and vices displayed by a person. An act with virtue is done out of a desire to fulfil that

motive that prompts the action itself (Statman, 2019). Virtue is a value that embodies

excellence as well as moral goodness (Gal et al., 2020). It is concerned with moral excellence

rather than a specific act. In this situation, Google was faced with a moral dilemma.

Companies have certain values and ethics included within their work culture and every

Google employee must follow them. In this case, it was ethical because we did not tolerate
 Ethics in Business 5

any disrespect against our employees and by doing so we upheld the values of virtue. The

second ethical framework to justify this action is communitarian. Communitarians believe

that we are social beings and that our identities are shaped by the community or communities

to which we belong. Some feel most at home in their local community whereas others feel

more connected to the global community or even to a spiritual community above nations or

classes. The sense of belonging is part of our sense of identity and forms part of how we

define ourselves as humans (Fackler, 2020). Google is not a representative democracy, but

rather an attempt to build a workplace community. In the case of this memo, the values put

forth by the person who wrote challenge the basic culture that Google has moderated around

for a long time. The philosophy of communitarianism offers an ethical perspective on

Google's actions. Communitarians believe that morality arises in the context of communities.

A community may be seen as a social arrangement derived from natural relationships. In the

case of working communities, individuals will have some duties towards their communities.

Since a community is a particular combination of ethical values and bonds, we can see it as

an ethical framework for moral decision making. In this case, the decision that was made is

ethical as it protected the community of Google from hate speech and stereotypes that could

have hurt a lot of people working in the company.

Question 3

Whether it is ethical for an organisation to fire someone if their viewpoint is a little

different and does not match the overall culture of the company or not depends on the

consequences the viewpoint has on other employees working in the company. The main

question that arises with the issue of firing someone on ethical grounds is what kind of

actions would be taken by the person expressing their view. There are two possibilities, either

the action is minor and only affects the individual or if instead it is major and can have

negative consequences such as affecting other employees in the team (Bhargava, 2020). The
 Ethics in Business 6

question of whether it is morally acceptable to fire a person for having a certain belief,

viewpoint or opinion and being public about it often arises in companies where the

organization is known for having certain definite beliefs. This can create some sort of

difficulty for the people that work in such an organization because their moral, ethical or

political viewpoint may be completely different from that of the organization. The place,

where every employee has to work together with each other and cooperate is often considered

as a microcosm of society in general. It makes it quite natural for people to believe that what

holds for the welfare of society holds for the welfare of business organizations as well. If the

view is expressed in a way that puts other employees in harm, then it can be said that the

action taken by the company can be justified ethically from certain moral standpoints. From a

perspective of virtue, it can be said that the decision of an organisation to fire someone based

on his views that puts other employees in harm is ethical (Pinto-Garay, 2019). To be virtuous

is to recognize the value of certain actions, to think about them, and to choose them when you

have a choice. It is having the courage to do what you know is right, even when there is no

benefit in it for you at all. The organisation in this decision upholds the values of the

company and business. Losing an employee is not very beneficial to the company but if their

views are creating a harmful work culture where it is affecting other employees, then it is

ethical for the organisation to fire the person. However, when an employee, who has

expressed a different opinion, is fired for that act, then that is an immoral act as it benefits the

company by keeping opinions under their control. Although the act is not virtuous in itself, it

can be said that virtue is present if there was a reason for why the employee got fired from

the position. In this case, the employee got fired because they expressed a different opinion

which differs from the opinion of their bosses (Bowie, 2019). When an employee is fired

merely because they have expressed a different opinion, then that is an immoral act as it

benefits the company by keeping opinions under their control. People like to work with those
 Ethics in Business 7

who share their beliefs. People also like to see that those in charge of a company are the same

people who are creating the company's culture. There is no doubt that in many cases, an

employee's personal views can affect how they treat other employees, how they view the

purpose of their job and how hard they're willing to work. The decisions made by any

organisation are done so for a reason and should be carefully thought through and complete

with a company's policy (Janamarta et al., 2021). Everyone expects the company to have the

welfare of their employees in mind, but there might be times when the well-being of an

employee clashes with that of the company itself. There are times when it becomes necessary

for a company to take action against one of its employees for various reasons. When this

happens, it is common for people to start questioning the morality of that company's actions.

The dilemma faced by companies can also easily be seen as a moral issue.

Question 4

A diverse workplace culture allows for a better understanding of employee needs and

is essential for a productive workforce. It cultivates meaningful conversation rather than

stifling employees from speaking out. Diversity is important because it strengthens, not

weakens, a team. Businesses with diverse teams outperform their peers in revenue, profits

and customer loyalty. A diverse workforce facilitates open discussion and innovation.

Conversations are more dynamic when different people can comfortably play devil's advocate

with each other. They are also vital for brainstorming ideas, as well as improving product

quality. Diversity is an essential element of a productive team. Evidence shows that diverse

workforces are more engaged, innovative and successful than homogenous ones. Employee

diversity is also critical to legal compliance and is a kind of insurance policy against the risks

that can arise from group-think (Ferrell et al., 2019). While the exact impact of diversity on

the bottom line is still being debated, it's clear that a diverse workforce can be a competitive

advantage for companies. Increasingly, workers who value having peers from other races and
 Ethics in Business 8

cultures are choosing employers that have diversity at the core of their mission statement.

Developing a diverse workforce does not mean hiring a variety of employees solely for the

sake of adding more people to the payroll. A diverse workforce is more than a collection of

people who represent different genders and ethnicities (Dietz & Fasbender, 2021). It is also

an organization of employees with a variety of beliefs, skills, and experiences. This allows

organizations to consider solutions from a wide variety of perspectives, increasing the

probability of finding approaches that will best meet the needs of their customers and

stakeholders (Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018). Employing a diverse team allows businesses to

gain access to unique perspectives and skills, which directly impact an organization's ability

to deliver on its' goals. Businesses who focus on employing a diverse team are more likely to

find solutions and gain a competitive edge through the people whom they employ. At best, it

can help businesses achieve their goals, while at the same time demonstrating that they value

individuality and self-expression. To avoid such a problem where employees are afraid of

speaking out, leaders should encourage a more collaborative work culture. To foster a

collaborative culture, leaders need to design and manage the environment so that it's geared

toward collaboration and sharing knowledge with other members of their organization. One

effective way to do this is to eliminate hierarchy and create an atmosphere of absolute and

complete trust between team members (Sewell et al., 2019). An environment of absolute trust

over hierarchy requires knowledge and experience to be given freely and openly amongst

team members. In a more collaborative work culture, employees will feel more comfortable

contributing their skills to the organization. An authoritative climate encourages competition

and usually results in a workplace full of fear and suspicion. Employees are often afraid that

they might be punished if they make mistakes or even if they contribute novel ideas to their

organization. To create a culture of collaboration and openness, leaders need to set it as an

expectation. Leaders need to show by example how their organization should work by
 Ethics in Business 9

sharing expertise openly with other employees (Salin, 2021). Another way to illustrate an

open environment toward knowledge is to make use of knowledge sharing programs, such as

corporate wikis or company forums. To foster such an environment, leaders need to monitor

their tone of voice as well as their words when interacting with others, and they should focus

on building a sense of community and belonging so team members feel secure in giving one

another feedback without fear of reprimand.

Question 5

Employees do have freedom of speech. However, there can be no freedom from

consequences. If the online posts are offensive and harmful to others then, yes the employers

have the right to fire the employees for the sake of the company. Freedom of speech is a

value that society has fought hard to defend in the creation of the First Amendment. As we

move into an era where the use of the Internet and social media has become a part of almost

everyone's daily lives, there are instances where employers are called to fire employees for

violation of their employer's policies regarding online conduct. The increasing use of social

media has raised concerns about applicants' use of offensive language and behaviour in

online forums, as well as about the risks to a company's reputation if an applicant's online

behaviours turn into news headlines. The modern workplace is complex, with a variety of

potential avenues for employees to violate corporate policy. In addition to monitoring

workers in the office, employers can conduct social media background checks on applicants

to learn more about their character. Recently, more companies are relying on pre-employment

Internet searches to assess an applicant's prior online behaviour, including information found

on Facebook and Twitter. All employees of any company have some level of free speech

while they are working provided they do not speak in a way that harms the business.

Companies are run to generate profit; therefore, any employee's speech that negatively

impacts the business can be considered harmful and destructive. Freedom of speech does not
 Ethics in Business 10

guarantee external benefits for others – for example, the right to distribute pornography or

incite violence on social media without consequences or loss of financial or economic

resources. As Internet social networking has become popular among employees, it has

blurred the boundaries between personal life and business. As a result, some workers have

learned details about their colleagues' off-duty activities that might otherwise have remained

private (Purwanto et al., 2019). As a result, employees may unknowingly expose political

affiliations or religious beliefs that could create conflicts with coworkers. In today's

workplace, digital communication through email and social media platforms such as Twitter

and Facebook is ubiquitous. Business leaders have responded by developing social media

guidelines that define acceptable online behaviour and set consequences for violations of the

rules. Few employees insist on displaying their social media profiles on their business cards

or bios, but many professionals are active on these sites in their off-hours. Unregulated

activity can lead to legal issues and potential damage to an employer's brand. Employers must

carefully consider which kinds of misconduct are acceptable and what action is warranted

when an employee violates the rules. Tolerance depends on circumstance, but business

leaders have flexibility in determining their employees' online conduct. Employers have a

right to discipline or terminate employees for illegal discrimination based on race, religion

and gender, divulging confidential information or disclosing trade secrets, or making

disparaging remarks about competitors. The employees cannot have the freedom from the

consequences of their actions. Employees also must stick to the company policies and refrain

from disclosing any of its confidential information, including trade secrets. These policies

should be mentioned in employee handbooks. The rules are quite important since they help

maintain trust and confidence between the employees and employers and allow dealings to

proceed without suspicion. Social media have forever changed the way people communicate

and interact. Changing from a cultural perspective, social media has increased relations
 Ethics in Business 11

between people and extended communication to an international audience. Social media also

offers great benefits of free communication but also brings with it challenges as well. The use

of social media and online media for business purposes can be effective as long as proper

etiquette is exercised and rules are followed.

References

Ferrell, O. C., Harrison, D. E., Ferrell, L., & Hair, J. F. (2019). Business ethics, corporate

social responsibility, and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Business

Research, 95, 491-501.

Purwanto, R. M., Mukharrom, T., Zhilyakov, D. I., Pamuji, E., & Shankar, K. (2019). Study

the importance of business ethics and ethical marketing in digital era. Journal of

Critical Reviews, 6(5), 150-154.

De Bakker, F. G., Rasche, A., & Ponte, S. (2019). Multi-stakeholder initiatives on

sustainability: A cross-disciplinary review and research agenda for business ethics.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(3), 343-383.

Sroka, W., & Szántó, R. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and business ethics in

controversial sectors: Analysis of research results. Journal of Entrepreneurship,

Management and Innovation, 14(3), 111-126.

 Ethics in Business 12

Gal, U., Jensen, T. B., & Stein, M. K. (2020). Breaking the vicious cycle of algorithmic

management: A virtue ethics approach to people analytics. Information and

Organization, 30(2), 100301.

Statman, S. D. (2019). Virtue ethics: A critical reader. Edinburgh University Press.

Fackler, M. (2020). Communitarianism. In The Routledge Handbook of Mass Media Ethics

(pp. 418-432). Routledge.

Pinto-Garay, J. (2019). Virtue Ethics in business: Scale and scope. In Business Ethics.

Emerald Publishing Limited.

Bhargava, V. R. (2020). Firm responses to mass outrage: Technology, blame, and

employment. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(3), 379-400.

Bowie, N. (2019). The moral obligations of multinational corporations. In Problems of

international justice (pp. 97-113). Routledge.

Janamarta, S., Yanti, L. D., & Jenni, J. (2021). The Influence of Corporate Social

Responsibility and Company Values on the Welfare of People's Lives. eCo-Buss,

4(2), 180-189.

Dietz, L., & Fasbender, U. (2021). Age-Diverse Workplace Friendship: A Systematic

Literature Review and Recommendations for Future Research. Work, Aging and

Retirement.

Brimhall, K. C., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2018). The critical role of workplace inclusion in

fostering innovation, job satisfaction, and quality of care in a diverse human service

organization. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership &

Governance, 42(5), 474-492.

Sewell, J. L., Maggio, L. A., Ten Cate, O., van Gog, T., Young, J. Q., & O’Sullivan, P. S.

(2019). Cognitive load theory for training health professionals in the workplace: A
 Ethics in Business 13

BEME review of studies among diverse professions: BEME Guide No. 53. Medical

teacher, 41(3), 256-270.

Salin, D. (2021). Workplace bullying and culture: Diverse conceptualizations and

interpretations. Dignity and Inclusion at Work, 513-538.