Ethical dilemma faced by Antonio
Antonio faces several ethical dilemmas in this case. His first dilemma is whether he should report to the insurance company the plan of Empress Luxury Lines to further damage the underground wires and cables in order to claim a bigger amount in insurance benefits. He can also talk to the CFO or the higher level management to discuss the problem. Another dilemma which Antonio faces is whether he should treat Kevin’s communication to him as confidential and just solely take responsibility about the issue to be raised.
Two strategies for addressing the situation
- Antonio can choose to ignore the situation and just keep his mouth shut about the anomaly. He can pretend that he does not know anything about it and that Kevin never informed him about Phil’s plan. He can advise Kevin to do the same thing and just follow the instructions of Phil. Antonio will also not report the incident to the insurance company.
- The other strategy that Antonio can do is to talk to upper management about the situation and discuss to them that he thinks that what Phil is planning to do is unethical. So that Kevin will not be perceived as a whistleblower, Antonio can tell management that he learned of the plan through Kevin, who was informing him of a job that was assigned to him. Antonio can make it look that Kevin was going to follow the instructions of Phil. But since he is the direct supervisor of Kevin, Kevin found it proper to inform him first. Antonio can inform management that if they proceed with their plan, he will be forced to report the incident to the insurance company. If after talking with upper management, they still insisted on proceeding with the plan, Antonio can go to the insurance company and discuss with them the situation. It should be noted that in this strategy Antonio will have to resign from his job because he will most probably be fired if he does not resign.
Pros and cons of the two strategies
Strategy A
If Antonio chooses to keep quiet and agree to the plan of Phil, he and Kevin will be assured that they can keep their jobs. They cannot be charged of insubordination. Another benefit of doing this strategy is the computer system will be finally upgraded which is what Antonio has been wanting to do. Furthermore, the funding for the upgrade will not be a problem because the funds will come from the insurance claim.
The disadvantage of this alternative is that both Antonio and Kevin will be bothered by their consciences for keeping quiet when they know they could have prevented the anomaly from happening. Since they will both be keeping their jobs, they should be prepared to possibly face similar situations in the future. Antonio should learn to “dance with the music” if he wants to build a career with Empress. The incident should be an eye opener to him that that is the culture that prevails in the organization. If he can live with it, then he should adapt strategy A. Another disadvantage of this option is that both Antonio and Kevin can be considered as “accessories to the crime” because they allowed Phil’s plan to happen. If the insurance company finds out the truth, they can both be charged as well because they connived with the scheme.
Strategy B
If Antonio decides to talk management out of the plan, then his conscience will be clear because he knows that he did the right thing. If management does not listen to him and he divulges the plan to the insurance company, the insurance company will be very grateful to him. His reputation will not be damaged because he will be viewed as someone who is ethically responsible and a highly-principled man.
The major drawback of this alternative is that most probably both Antonio and Kevin will lose their jobs. Management will definitely not look kindly on Antonio if he reports them to the insurance company. As a whistleblower, Antonio, if he decides to cover up for Kevin, has no protection since Empress does not have a policy on whistleblowers. If Empress has been practicing unethical decision making practices, then they will consider Antonio as a threat to their organization if he does not agree with their “culture”.
Recommendation
If one is in Antonio’s position, one will adapt strategy B which is to talk to management and tell them that what they plan to do is not right. If they tamper with the wires and cables, they are deceiving the insurance company which is unethical. Once Antonio decides to do strategy B, he must be ready to tender his resignation or be fired. It would be better not to drag Kevin in the picture unless he does not want to work with Empress anymore. Antonio can take full responsibility on the information that he gathered. This recommendation tackled the issue using the utilitarian approach which takes into consideration the balance of good over evil. The recommendation may be bad for Empress and its management but it is for the good of Antonio, Kevin and the insurance company.
One believes that the recommendation suggested is in the postconventional level of morality. The postconventional morality means that the individual’s decision does not only consider authority or actions that will be pleasing to others, rather, they are guided by the protection of the rights of others. In this case, Antonio is protecting the rights of Kevin and the insurance company. If Antonio and Kevin will be fired, one thinks that they should still include Empress in their resume because it tells a lot about how ethically-responsible they are. Other companies would gladly hire them despite the reason why they were fired at Empress. Being whistleblowers, both Antonio and Kevin has the right to sue Empress for wrongful termination.
References
Doyle, A. (2013). Fired for whistleblowing. Retrieved from jobsearch.about.com: http://jobsearch.about.com/od/jobloss/g/whistleblowing.htm
McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Kohlberg's three levels and six stages of moral reasoning. In T. M. McDevitt, & J. E. Ormrod, Child Development and Education (p. 518). Prentice Hall. Retrieved from education.com: http://www.education.com/reference/article/kohlbergs-moral-reasoning/
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (1996). Thinking ethically: A framework for moral decision-making. Retrieved from scu.edu: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v7n1/thinking.html
