Ethical Dilemma
The ethical dilemma described in the case study is a typical problem for many companies that try to preserve the loyalty of their clients at any cost. Thus, a sales manager of Scott Carpets, Peter Green, is asked to sacrifice his moral principles for the sake of the company’s benefit. The dilemma is complicated by the fact that it is imposed from above – it is Peter’s boss who insists on committing an immoral act.
Alternative Actions
In the framework of the relevant context, Peter has a series of alternatives. On the face of it, the sales manager has a moral right to refuse to commit an action that contradicts his ethical principles. The opposite way out that Peter might choose is to obey his boss’s order despite the personal vision of the situation. Another alternative solution resides in finding a compromise. In this case, the manager will have to be particularly enterprising as he will need to find some alternative offers that will both satisfy Bob Franklin and remain within the borders of Peter’s morality. Moreover, if the man chooses the last variant, he will also need to be persuasive enough to convince his boss of the rightness of this decision.
Affected Parties
Whatever alternative is selected, there are three main parties that will be affected most of all. First and foremost, it is the sales manager that can be affected in two ways. In case he decides to fulfill the boss’s request, he will essentially experience a certain moral discomfort as this action contradicts his ethical principles. In the meantime, if the man chooses to refuse to act upon Murphy’s directions, it is likely that he will have to face some job-related problems.
The second involved party is Murphy. The boss has two key interests in the relevant situation. Firstly, he needs to prove his authoritative capacity and see to the fact that his subordinate obeys. Secondly, Murphy is highly interested in maintaining collaboration with profitable customer.
The last party involved in the conflict is Bob Franklin, who is interested in the company fulfilling his conditions. To a wider extent, all the stakeholders of Scott Carpets are affected as they will, to a larger or smaller extent, benefit from a profitable deal.
Potential Outcomes
Potential outcomes mainly depend on the behavior pattern that Peter chooses. If he prefers to stand his ground, there is a strong possibility that he will lose his job – his refusal will necessarily signify his disagreement with the general company’s policy so that his boss might want to replace him with a more conformable employee. In case the man gives in to the boss’s insistence, the problem will be resolved; however, it is likely to reappear once in a while as more raw deals will need to be managed. Finally, if he finds an alternative that suits both the boss and the client, he will manage to hold down his job without sacrificing his moral principles.
The Best Alternative
The best way out in the relevant context is finding a compromise – Peter should come up with an alternative offer that will suit his client and convince his boss of the advantages of this solution. This variant is beneficial from both moral and practical perspectives. Nevertheless, it is essential to admit that this idea will be the most problematic to realize.