McMahon_John_17642143_Fundamentals_of_Management_Tuesday12pm

Assignment Cover Sheet

Given name John

Surname McMahon

Student number 17642143

Email [email protected]

Unit name Fundamentals of Management

Unit code MGMT 1000

Assignment title Final Essay

Date submitted 02/10/2016

Workshop day Tuesday

Workshop time 12pm

Group Number 3

Tutor’s Names Desmond Tutu

Carla Martella

Word Count 1643

As Dateline (2016) described, Zika, a mosquito-bourne virus, has been linked to

Microcephaly in developing embryos. Some athletes preparing for Rio have concerns

that Zika will affect children conceived after the Olympics. These athletes wish to

revoke their contracts and avoid the normal financial penalties; the head coach has

requested full penalties apply. Contradictions like this create ethical dilemmas.

Resolution of these ethical quandaries is essential to any managerial role. Managers

evaluate possibilities using ethical modelling, to identify ethically superior choices.

This paper will evaluate Zika issue using three ethical models: Moral Rights,

Utilitarian and Justice (Waddell, Jones and George 2013, 133; Fritzsche and Becker

1984, 167). After considering each model, the paper will conclude by explaining the

Justice model recommendation, that athletes should incur a token financial penalty

should they wish to withdraw for this reason. The inquiry begins with the unique

perspective of the Moral Rights model.

The Moral Rights model states that every individual has fundamental rights that

should never be violated: freedom, life, safety, privacy, free speech and freedom of

conscience (Fritzsche and Becker 1984, 167; Waddell, Jones and George 2013).

The advantage of Moral Rights lies in its unambiguous stance on ethical matters,

allowing for the prompt application of this model to issues. Unfortunately, the benefits

of this monochrome approach, are countered by a fundamental limitation in scope;

any lasting impacts from these decisions are disregarded to pursue ideals. More

significantly, divergent opinions over the definition of fundamental rights may result in

misapplication by individuals employing personal interpretations of this model.

The application of Moral Rights concludes that athletes must be allowed to withdraw

without penalty. Refuse of the athletes’ wish to withdraw violates their right to

freedom and safety. This decision does benefit some stakeholders: the athletes’

fundamental rights are upheld, the risk of Microcephaly is minimised, the athlete’s

families avoid unnecessary social and financial costs due to Microcephaly and

medical institutions avoid additional pressure for services. There are groups

negatively impacted by this decision as well: the lost finite time, energy and morale

for the coaches; wasted sponsor and government funding; sporting organisations

losing reputation and respect leading to lower future participation; spectators sacrifice

John McMahon 17642143

watching the finest athlete competing; future athletes may suffer reduced support as

an indirect consequence of these athletes withdrawing without penalty.

The fast application to issues that Moral Rights model permits is excellent, however,

the oversimplification caused by this model when applied in isolation will likely also

result in unintentional persistent costs. These costs limit the benefits provided by this

model, eliminating its suitability for application exclusively. Theoretically, managers

could exploit the strengths of this model to identify key issues early to supplement the

other models.

The Utilitarian model, described by Fritzsche and Becker (1984, 167; Fok, Payne and

Corey 2016, 265; Cavanagh, Moberg, and Velasquez 1981), considers ethical

outcomes solely by their results, endorsing decisions seen to provide the greatest

benefit to the most people overall. There are two subtypes of the Utilitarian model:

Act and Rule. Each subtype will be reviewed separately, being with Act Utilitarianism

as different outcomes are possible using these approaches.

Act Utilitarianism considers each issue in isolation, seeking the maximum direct

social benefit from each individual decision. This model on a theoretical level appears

to be the perfect model, however, fundamental limitations affect its usability when

applied practically. The Act model concentrates solely on immediate and direct

benefits, ignoring any indirect or lasting consequences.

This model would require the athletes pay the full penalty to withdraw. The only

stakeholders to immediately benefit from the athletes withdrawing without penalty are

the athletes themselves and their families. The preferred outcome for the other

stakeholders is if athletes compete as planned, applying full penalties gives this

outcome the greatest chance of occurring.

The first issue explained by Boyd (1999, 106) is inconsistent decisions will erode law

integrity; the resulting instability causing undesirable consequences over time. The

second consideration discussed by Kang (2003, 97) is minor benefits to many will

usually provide greater absolute utility than substantial benefits to minorities.

Therefore, an inadvertent externality of this model is that it encourages a conformist


agenda by actively discriminating against minority groups. As the minority in this

situation, the significant benefit of allowing the athletes to withdraw is ignored in

favour of minor short-term benefits to the stakeholders mentioned previously.

The Rule Utilitarian approach judges ethical action solely on its adherence to the

law. This approach assumes that absolute obedience to the rule of law will produce

optimum results over time. The inefficiency of any individual decision is considered

acceptable collateral to safeguard the strength of these rules. The ethical strength of

this approach is dependent entirely on the ethical quality of the laws; ethically lax

laws or loopholes permit exploitation; complex laws causes inefficiencies and makes

compliance more challenging.

When evaluated by the Rule Utilitarian model, athletes face full penalties for

withdrawing. In accordance with the law, all athletes signed contracts agreeing to

accept fees for withdrawing from the Olympics for personal reasons. The purpose of

a legal contract is to maintain trust between the athletes and supporting stakeholders

by explicitly outlining each parties’ respective expectations and duties. As conditions

for withdrawal are already outlined by the contract, invalidating the contract would be

unethical according to this model, regardless of reasoning. The rationale that

maintaining contract integrity surpasses any potential benefit from bending rules for

one specific case. Future contracts could include exclusion clauses to deal with these

issues, but that wouldn’t influence this decision.

As the Rule Utilitarian model recommendation, in this case, mirrors the advice of the

Act Utilitarian model, likewise the consequences to stakeholders will be identical.

Justice model as described by (Bonnycastle 2011, 268-172; Fritzsche and Becker

1984, 167; Waddell, Jones and George 2013; Cugueró-escofet and Fortin 2014, 435-

445) considers ethics through the allocation of costs and benefits amongst

stakeholders. The model stems from the idea that any benefit for one group is

acquired at the expense of another, and therefore deserves fair compensation.

Distribution of outcomes can be determined using a few methods; each one will be

reviewed briefly before focusing on the chosen method. Firstly, absolute even


distribution amongst stakeholders; this method simplifies decisions, but unfairly

allocates costs to stakeholders that are absent of benefits. Secondly, distribution

according to need; this method is functionally similar to Act-based Utilitarianism,

which has been already discussed in depth. Lastly, Proportional distribution based on

contribution; this method appears to favour stakeholders with larger resources when

considering outright contributions, however, when priority is given to groups with the

greatest relative commitment, then the stakeholders at greatest risk are protected.

For this recommendation, the contribution based distribution Justice model using

relative contribution will be applied.

The advised outcome is allowing athletes to withdraw while incurring a minor

financial penalty. The rationale behind this decision assesses each of the

stakeholders based on the relative significance of their commitments and relative

costs to each of the stakeholders depending on the outcome.

The athletes and their families have the most to gain or lose from the decision. The

enduring cost to the family of raising a child with Microcephaly will vastly exceed the

immediate penalty for withdrawing under normal conditions, however, athletes unable

to bear the cost may be forced to participate unwillingly. Similarly, doctors and

medical institutions must support additional pressure for services should a child be

born with Microcephaly; these resources can be redistributed elsewhere if the

athletes are allowed to withdraw.

The government will suffer losses irrespective of the outcome, nevertheless, the

immediate impact of an athlete withdrawing is insignificant when compared to the

additional costs to subsidise support programs and medical services. The preferred

outcome for the government supports allowing athlete withdrawal.

Sponsors in absolute terms have a large stake in the outcome. The financial

investment in these athletes will be predominantly wasted should the athlete

withdraw. This may result in lower sponsorship in future, especially if advertising the

athlete was the intent behind the initial investment. The sponsors stand to gain from

the athletes’ participation in the Olympics and have minimal incentive to allow the


athletes to withdraw. It is important to note that the relative commitment from some of

these companies is very small, even if in absolute terms the investment is large.

The coaches have finite time and energy to utilise their knowledge and skills, to

maximise their impact they restrict themselves to a select group of athletes.

Therefore, when an athlete withdraws, the coaches’ efforts are squandered.

Alternately, if the athletes are pressured to participate, reduced morale will impact

performance and may influence the other athletes. Leading the coaches to prefer that

the athletes compete, however, either outcome may ultimately be undesirable for the

coach.

The sporting organisations face the unique set of problems where they have a

significant investment in the athletes chosen and opinions about the athletes’

withdrawal will result in mixed responses irrespective of the outcome. The

organisation will face a backlash from sponsors, competing athletes, benched

athletes and face public criticism regardless of the decision.

The final major stakeholder is the spectators. This group have the lowest relative

investment as they wish to watch the best athletes in the world compete. As a result,

the decision whether to allow the athletes to withdraw has minimal bearing on the

spectators as there are many other athletes in attendance.

To summarise, each model presented provides formal structures for solving ethical

dilemmas, with each offering a unique focus: Utilitarian, maximum benefit; Moral

rights, safeguarding fundamental rights; Justice, balancing costs and benefits to

stakeholders. The Justice model provided the final recommendation, allowing the

athletes to withdraw with minor penalties. This model prioritises the athlete’s safety

while respecting the legal and financial impacts to other stakeholders. Ethical

decisions result from mutual understanding between stakeholders; achieving

mutually beneficial outcomes, enhancing trust, respect and providing consideration

for future dealings.


Bibliography

Bonnycastle, Colin R.. 2011. “Social Justice along a Continuum: A Relational

Illustrutive Model.” Social Service Review, 85(2), 267-295. Retrieved from

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdfplus/

10.1086/660703

Boyd, Andrew John. 1999. "A Theory of just War: A Philosophical and Historical

Analysis." Order No. 9917758, Loyola University Chicago.

http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/304513659?

accountid=10382.

Cavanagh, Gerald F., Dennis J. Moberg, and Manuel Velasquez. 1981. “The ethics

of organizational politics.” Academy of Management.the Academy of

Management Review (Pre-1986), 6(000003), 363. Retrieved from


accountid=10382

Cugueró-escofet, Natalia and Marion Fortin. 2014. “One justice or two? A model of

reconciliation of normative justice theories and empirical research on

organizational justice.” Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 435-451. Retrieved

from http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1007/s10551-013-1881-1

Dateline. 2016. Love in the Time of Zika. Streaming video, 26:15, SBS on Demand,

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/639658051626/dateline-love-in-the-

time-of-zika

Fritzsche, David J., and Helmut Becker. 1984. “Linking management behavior to

ethical philosophy - an empirical investigation.” Academy of Management

Journal (Pre-1986), 27(1), 166-175. Retrieved from


accountid=10382


Fok, Lillian Y., Dinah M. Payne, and Christy M. Corey. 2016. “Cultural values,

utilitarian orientation, and ethical decision making: A comparison of U.S. and

puerto rican professionals.” Journal of Business Ethics, 134(2), 263-279.

Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1007/s10551-014-

2426-y

Kang, Joon Ho. 2003. "Maximization and Equality: An Examination of Utilitarian

Responses to Rawls and Other Critics." Order No. 3124167, Purdue

University.


accountid=10382.

Waddell, Dianne, Gareth R. Jones, and Jennifer M. George. 2013. Contemporary

Management. 3rd ed. Sydney: McGraw Hill Education.


Documents

McMahon_John_17642143_Fundamentals_of_Management_Tuesday12pm