Ethical Analysis
Introduction
The task of a project manager is often not easy considering that they encounter a number of dilemmas when it comes to making decisions that are vital for the successful completion of the project. Therefore, project managers are required to know many things, and carry out a large number of tasks on a regular basis with substantial responsibility. The question on what should project managers do when they come across tough dilemmas depends on a number of issues including the theory that the results are of more value than the actions. This paper will analyse the scenario where a project manager is in a dilemma on whether to report underestimation on the project budget and risk loss of funding among other measures that can be undertaken to arrive at an amicable decision.
According to this scenario, a project manager has been appointed to ensure the design of an information system, but he realizes that the previous project designers had understated the budget of the project. The situation is very serious because the cost quoted for the project is four times less than the required amount to complete the project and, therefore, more funding is needed to complete the project. The situation needs to be reported to the project sponsor who may definitely be unwilling to continue the funding of the project and may even cancel the project (Sinclair, 1993). Therefore, reporting to the sponsor is out of the question at the moment to avoid losing the funding for the project that will be of great importance to the business in the future. The decision that is of low risk is delaying to report to the supervisor and waiting until the project is underway because the sponsor will be reluctant to cancel the project at that moment. A number of facts are evidenced in this case, which are:
1. The cost of completing the project is higher than the quoted cost; hence, increased funding is needed for completion.
2. Informing the sponsor of the matter before commencing the project will definitely lead to the cancellation of the project without future consideration.
3. Even though the project may cost the sponsor more than he or she may have budgeted for, the project will be of great significance to the business in the future, and its return on investment is also high.
The issue that is of concern is whether to inform the sponsor of the underestimated project budget and risk termination of the project at its initial stage. Additionally, the issue of job security is also of concern because termination of the project may render the project manager jobless along with other information technology experts (Su, 2014). A number of individuals are affected in view of this scenario with the first person being the sponsor of the project. The sponsor will be affected because informing him the project at the moment will force him to cancel it, and informing him later will force him to increase the funding. Second, the project manager will be affected in terms of reputation based on the decision that he will arrive at. Acknowledging the project at the initial stage may lead to loss of jobs while delaying the information may subject him to bad ethical behaviour, and loss of trust by the sponsor of the project.
Utilitarianism Theory
Utilitarianism theory can be used to analyse the above scenario, which mainly asserts that no ethical act or rule is innately correct or wrong, but the correctness or wrongness of a decision is only determined by the overall non-normal good obtained in the process of making the decision. In that, the consequences of a decision are more important than the decision itself and, therefore, a slight bad decision at the moment may be tolerated if the calculated good consequences outweigh the bad consequences (Casali & Day 2015). The maximum good on many people should be regarded as the measure to whether a decision is right or wrong, and as Aristotle said, the greatest thing is to accept responsibility for the decisions made. This theory also follows the principle of utility that refers to the inclination of a decision to produce happiness of a person or inhibit happiness of an individual. According to this case, there are two probable decisions that the project manager may make, which are informing the sponsor before embarking on the project or informing the sponsor after beginning the project. According to relativism, these two actions can both be correct when viewed by two different persons, but utilitarianism adds to it the concept of greater good (Su, 2014). Therefore, informing the sponsor early will lead to termination of project and loss of jobs while the only benefit will be saving of cost for the sponsor. On the other hand, informing the sponsor later after the project has commenced will lead to extra spending for the sponsor and the risk of terminating the job halfway, but the merits include job security, completion of the project, and improvement of services. Therefore, according to the theory of Utilitarianism, informing the sponsor after commencing the project is the best decision (Dawson, 2015).
Virtue Ethics Theory
Virtue ethics theory can also be used by the project manager to analyse the best course of action to take in regard to the above case, which puts more emphasis on using a person’s character to make ethical decisions as compared to the rule or consequences of the decisions. According to the virtue ethics theory, the matter in making decisions is not determined by whether the intentions are right, whether the right rule is being adhered to, or whether the consequences of the action are good (Kuntz, Elenkov & Nabirukhina, 2013). However, the sole determinant of ethical decisions is whether the individuals undertaking the action are portraying desirable character. Therefore, the theory presupposes that a decision is ethically correct if, in making the decision, a person demonstrates, displays or develops an ethically virtuous character. Aristotle also stated that one becomes ethical by experience after which it becomes instinctive, implying that he or she will be able to exercise the virtues through instincts. Hence, the two decisions that the project manager has identified may be ethically wrong if by making the decisions of implementing either of them, he will demonstrate, display, or develop an ethically vicious character (McCrickerd, 2000). The first decision regards informing the sponsor before starting the design of the information system, which will portray the project manager as an honest and courageous person. Informing the sponsor of the situation later after the project is underway may make the project manager be viewed as a dishonest person. However, it should be noted that the latter decision may be viewed by others as courageous because he would have gone out of his way to ensure that the project is completed without the fear of losing his job (Naimi, 2007).
Kantianism Theory
Finally, the project manager may make use of the Kantianism or Deontological theory in arriving at the right decisions, which implies that decisions in the workplace should be driven by the sense of moral duty. All the decisions are made according to some underlying principle that vary from each other, and it is according to this principle that the moral value of a decision is determined (Obalola, 2010). Kant believes that universality test can be used to identify the moral rules that people must follow, a rule that does not give room for exception with the example of lying. Additionally, there are those perfect duties that people need to follow without exceptions while there are those imperfect duties that people are not obliged to adhere to always, but when the two are in conflict, the perfect duty is always followed (Week 2). In our case, the underlying principle that the two decisions or options should observe is honesty and informed consent (Parkes & Davis, 2013). These two principles are important when undertaking any project because all the stakeholders need to be informed of everything that is taking place. The first decision involves informing the sponsor before beginning the project in order to observe the principle of informed choice. Additionally, honesty as a principle will be observed, which implies that the first option is morally right or is ethical (Romani & Szkudlarek, 2014). However, delaying to deliver the information to the sponsor amounts to breaking of the of the informed consent principle and in addition the honesty principle.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are three ethical issues in consideration, which are virtue ethics, Kantianism, and utilitarianism that the project manager needs to consider in analysing the situation and coming to with the right decision. When both virtue and Kantianism are used in the analysis, it implies that the sponsor needs to be informed when the project has not been started about the underestimation in cost. However, the adoption of utilitarianism goes for the choice with better consequences; hence, the project manager will have to disclose the information when the project is underway. The best ethical approach to use is utilitarianism where the decision is weighed upon all the stakeholders and the benefits it will have in the end. Therefore, the project manager has two options of informing the project manager early in advance or waiting until the project is underway before informing the sponsor. The option that wins according to utilitarianism is informing the manager of the underestimation of the project cost when the project is underway because of the theory of the greater good.
References
Casali, GL, & Day, GE 2015, 'A Taxonomic Approach to Understanding Managerial Ethical Decision-Making Approaches of Clinically and Non-Clinically Trained Healthcare Managers in Australia', Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. SI8-SI17.
Dawson, D 2015, 'Two Forms of Virtue Ethics: Two Sets of Virtuous Action in the Fire Service Dispute?’ Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 585-601.
Kuntz, J, Elenkov, D, & Nabirukhina, A 2013, 'Characterizing Ethical Cases: A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Individual Differences, Organisational Climate, and Leadership on Ethical Decision-Making', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 317-331.
McCrickerd, J 2000, 'Metaphors, Models and Organisational Ethics in Health Care', Journal of Medical Ethics, no. 5, p. 340.
Naimi, L 2007, 'Strategies for Teaching Research Ethics in Business, Management and Organisational Studies', Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 29-36.
Obalola, MA 2010, 'Ethics and social responsibility in the Nigerian insurance industry: a multi-methods approach'.
Parkes, C, & Davis, AJ 2013, 'Ethics and social responsibility – do HR professionals have the ‘courage to challenge’ or are they set to be permanent ‘bystanders?’', International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2411-2434.
Romani, L, & Szkudlarek, B 2014, 'The Struggles of the Interculturalists: Professional Ethical Identity and Early Stages of Codes of Ethics Development', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 173-191.
Sinclair, A 1993, 'Approaches to Organisational Culture and Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 63-73.
Su, H 2014, 'Business Ethics and the Development of Intellectual Capital', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 87-98.
