1 response
Leave a response- <p>I came across a model, which is very useful in answering the question whether a political act, like the one described (to influence the client in such a way that he is going to spend more money on you as a consultant then necessary) is ethical or not? In short, this model works as follows:First question: Is the act acceptable according to the following ethical criteria:- Utility: Does the act optimize the satisfaction of all constituencies?- Rights: Does the act respect the rights of the individuals involved?- Justice: Is the act consistent with the canons of justice?If yes, than the act is ethical.If no, the second question: Are there any:- Overwhelming factors? (refers to any aspect of the circumstances that would justify setting aside one or all of these three ethical criteria)- Double effects? (refers to the situation that the negative outcomes become acceptable if the dominant purpose is to achieve the positive outcomes and if those outweigh the negative outcomes)- Incapacitating factors? (refers to the possibility that the decision maker may be unable to apply these three ethical criteria)If yes, than the act is ethical. In the described case, it’s evidently that the answer to the first question in relation to utility and rights is no and that the one to the second question in relation to all three is as well no. Therefore, the act was unethical.I have experienced myself a related situation. In fact, my CEO pushed and forced his ideas (changing our selling behavior) upon an advisor and he used the advisors report in support of his ideas to convince the company. In the beginning, the advisor must have asked himself whether to go through or not? In fact, he delivered in the end the goods. The report was clearly in support, but in my opinion he must have found reasons to believe that the answer to the first question was yes anyway. For more details see: Power, Politics, and Organizational Change, written by Dave Buchanan Richard Badham.</p>