People encounter hundreds of situations every day, and some of them are more complex than others. The most difficult situations are those which require people to make decisions which cannot be universally recognized as ethical. In such cases, it is important to rely on ethical frameworks which can help individuals guide their decision-making and actions under controversial circumstances. Case study A is an example of a workplace situation which implies making a decision which is likely to disappoint some of the stakeholders. Such a workplace situation requires the manager to apply the utilitarian ethical theory and prioritize the interests of the business over the sentiments of the staff.
First of all, it is important to provide a basic overview of the situation in question. A notable politician visits a restaurant, in which the staff hold strong beliefs about his stance and demand the manager to ask the politician to leave the restaurant. As a result, the manager must either tell their guest to vacate the premises to satisfy the staff or tell the servers to continue working and avoid attempting to disrupt the client’s experience. Moreover, the manager is not the owner of the restaurant and simply works there and thus has the same status as other employees.
While there are several ethical frameworks applicable to the current case, the most relevant of them is the utilitarian approach. Specifically, utilitarianism implies that an ethical decision is one which can generate more benefit than harm and suffering (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2018). Utilitarianism is flexible and can be applied to various scenarios, and the same situation can be viewed differently by people. Nevertheless, in the case of the issue at hand, the manager must perform their role as an employee of the businesses they work for. As a result, they should prioritize the interests of the business over anyone else (Arnold & Bowie, 2019). Thus, the manager must decide which decision concerning the politician will generate more benefit for the restaurant. It is clear that if the manager decides to ask the politician to leave, the information about such a decision will quickly become public. Therefore, once people discover that the restaurant can refuse to serve their guests based on their political views, the restaurant will suffer considerable reputational losses.
Subsequently, people will be reluctant to visit the restaurant, and it can potentially fail to achieve its financial targets as a result. Thus, the only ethical solution for the manager will be to let the politician have their dinner and tell the staff to stop the attempts to hinder the customer experience of the guest. Nevertheless, the manager also needs to thoroughly explain their position to the staff and tell them that, as employees, they do not have the right to make policies of the restaurant. Moreover, it is also important for the manager to say that discrimination against people based on their political beliefs is prohibited by the constitution of the country (Arnold & Bowie, 2019). At the same time, the manager has to guarantee to the staff members that their perspective on the case will be conveyed to the owner, who will share their own opinion. Such an approach will let the manager avoid harming the reputation of the restaurant and will give the staff a chance to voice their concerns to the owner.
Ethical decisions can be difficult, but by following the established theories, the most complex situations can be solved. The utilitarian approach enables people to determine the ethical decision by considering the potential benefits and disadvantages. In the case of the situation question, the manager has to prioritize the interest of the restaurant and let the politician have the rights of any other guest.
References
Arnold, D., & Bowie, N. (2019). Ethical theory and business. Cambridge University Press.
MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2017). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.