The presented case study on Joe Collata’s ethical dilemma indicates the conflict of interests between corporate loyalty and personal moral code. The case reveals that Joe is working at Acme, which offers financial services for clients, specifically short-term loans. Nonetheless, the company conducts aggressive entrepreneurship and targets a vulnerable population, who has little or no knowledge about financial institutions and loans. As an accountant, Joe works with documents and transactions; however, he is not working with the frontline employees and only heard about corporate behavior and fraud.
The issue is that Joe does not desire to work in a hostile environment and support Acme’s aggressive behavior. Nonetheless, he has a family and cannot easily quit the job. Besides, due to past employment records, Joe is concerned that he will face challenges searching for a new job. As a result, Joe faces moral struggles, whether to preserve the family’s welfare and stay with Acme, or to look for new opportunities.
In this case, it is evident that the case study highlights the conflict of interests based on the difference in corporate behavior and employee’s moral code. It can be admitted that Joe also faces the ethical dilemma “right vs. right,” when any decision is neither good nor bad. The solution for the situation should be based on acceptable conditions; however, Joe seems to be stuck between family needs, secure position, and personal beliefs.
While the situation is controversial, it can be stated that Joe should change the workplace and explain to his family the reasons for such a decision. According to the utilitarian approach, the person should tend to accomplish a greater good so that Joe should preserve his mental health, family welfare, and job security by finding a better working place. From this perspective, Joe should take a risk and look for better alternatives.
The current situation indicates that Joe should leave the company and secure himself and his family from any corporate frauds and consequences of Acme’s activities. Moreover, the hazardous working conditions and moral struggles have a downward effect on Joe, as he does not desire to work at Acme anymore; however, still needs to earn a living. In this instance, Joe should try to find a new position, which will not be aligned with the title pawn business. As a result, Joe can be recommended to change the situation in the nearest time so that he will not suffer from workplace hazards and ethical dilemmas. If such a change causes temporary inconveniences for family welfare, Joe should explain to the family and prepare some extra measures to overcome difficulties related to the new employment process.
Acme can change the corporate culture and behavior through enhancement and improvement of the external activities and its financial services. The intervention should touch the legal aspects of Acme’s conduct so that contracts and commercial agreements with clients would be more flexible and transparent. Besides, the improvement in employees’ behavior should be managed, as Joe admitted that some workers tend to misbehave and even challenge the authority of senior managers. Such a corporate environment cannot be cultivated so that Acme should launch a change intervention and educate personnel about communication and business ethics. The proposed alternatives should improve the situation, enhance employee behavior, and enhance the company’s attitude toward its clients. From this perspective, Acme could stay in the title pawn field; however, it should tend to more customer-oriented approaches and higher levels of employee skills and business literacy.