A company faces a viral social media crisis after an employee was filmed making insensitive comments while wearing a company uniform. The video has been viewed over 2 million times, with many calling for the employee’s termination. The employee claims the video was edited to remove context and that they were expressing a personal opinion outside of work hours.If the company wants to apply utilitarianism, which of the following responses creates the greatest overall good?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The scenario presents a viral crisis and asks which response, under utilitarian reasoning, would create the greatest overall good. Evaluate each option in terms of outcomes, consequences, and the balance of harms and benefits.

Option a: Immediately terminate the employee to protect company reputation and demonstrate zero tolerance.
- This option prioritizes rapid reputational protection and a strict policy stance. However, a hasty termination without due process may cause greater harm: it could appear vindictive, fail to verify facts, and undermine fairness and morale. Under utilitarianism, the long-term consequences on stakeholders (employee due process rights, reputation recovery, potential legal exposure) may produce less overall good if misjudgments occur or if termination inflames public distrust.

Option b: Defend the employee’s right to free speech regardless of public reaction.
- This choice emphasizes protecting the employee, but utilitarian analysis weighs the broader consequences. Defending free speech in this context could undermine organizational accountability, alienate the public, customers, and employees who expect respectful conduct in brand-associated contexts. The overall good may decrease if the public perceives the company as uncaring about harm caused, reducing trust and sales.

Option c: Issue a public apology without addressing the specific employee to minimize further attention.
- Apologizing publicly can acknowledge harm and begin reputational repair, but ignoring the individual involved may appear evasive or unfair. Utilitarian reasoning would consider whether addressing the specific incident and person is necessary to restore trust and accountability. This option risks incomplete accountability and could leave stakeholders unsatisfied, limiting the positive impact of the apology.

Option d: Conduct a thorough investigation while temporarily suspending the employee, balancing due process against reputation management.
- This approach blends due process with reputational considerations. A thorough investigation seeks the truth, which can prevent wrongful punishment and reduce long-term harm. Temporary suspension demonstrates seriousness while allowing fact-finding, preserving fairness for the employee and signaling accountability to stakeholders. From a utilitarian perspective, careful due process can maximize overall good by mitigating harm, preserving trust, and informing appropriate discipline if warranted.

In summary, each option carries distinct ethical and practical implications. The fastest or most punitive options (a or c) may create short-term visibility but risk greater long-term harm if missteps occur or accountability is perceived as unfair. Defending free speech (b) neglects the organization-wide impact and stakeholder trust. The most balanced choice that aims to maximize overall good, by accurately determining fault while safeguarding process and reputation, is option d.

25_4 MGT3600 Ethical Leadership & Moral Development

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

When approached from a virtue ethics perspective, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is primarily focused on

What is the key purpose of applying multiple ethical frameworks to business decisions?

Which of the following best characterizes businesses operating at the Preconventional level?

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单