Business Ethics
Ethics is a concern of the business world. Sometimes we get businessmen who are willing to take every avenue other than the right one. Let’s take the hypothetical situation of two workers who agree to work for $29,500 but when they get paid $35,900 they don’t say anything. The question is whether we give them the benefit of doubt or if they purposely didn’t say anything. As a manager how would we handle this situation? If they say that they didn’t notice, can we believe them? If they admit to noticing, how can we trust them? To conclude what to believe we need to consider human nature and what motivates them. Knowing this will provide us with knowledge to, as a manager, decide how to handle the two employee’s.
People act according to what they find pleasurable. If someone eats pizza it’s because they find pizza pleasurable. If someone buys an electric car it’s because caring for the environment, or the car itself, is pleasurable. So people are motivated to make certain decisions by what brings them pleasure. Knowing this tells us one thing: people are always selfish. They are always selfish because no matter what they do they gain something from a decision. Let’s take charities for example. When someone donates money to a charity, they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they are doing it because helping the cause is pleasurable and makes them feel good about themselves. Donating to a charity is in no way a bad thing but it is selfish.
Now that we know that people act according to pleasure and that they are always selfish, let’s consider the hypothetical.. The likelihood that the workers didn’t notice the huge increase in their paycheck is minimal. This is because having extra money is pleasurable and people are selfish. So it’s more likely that they kept the money and didn’t notify their bosses because the money made them feel good. So to give them the benefit of the doubt would be to ignore our very human nature. So as a manager, although we can’t be sure, we can assume that they might have kept it knowingly.
So how do we handle these employees? Do we fire them or let it slide? Firing them seems kinda extreme but letting it slide just encourages them, as well as other employees, to take advantage of the company. Another solution that discourages people from taking from the company and isn’t as extreme as firing, is to have them pay the money back over a period of time. In addition, it accepts that the company had fault for overpaying them in the first place. Considering this different approach we are faced with a different question: Do we let it slide or do we make them pay it back. There are three ways we can approach this: Contractualism, Kantian Ethics, and Dan Ariely’s findings on dishonesty.
Contractualism is the idea of deals. If two people make deals to trade apples for oranges, and each honor that deal, then each member of the deal will be satisfied and happy. However, if one member were to take an apple without consent, such as a contract, then it will make the two parties enemies. This translates to this case. Two workers made a deal with a company to do x work for x amount of money. When the workers got paid y amount of money and didn’t say anything they broke that deal. The company also broke the deal by paying the workers y amount of money. So according to Hobbes they both had fault in this deal. Considering they both had faults, then it’s clear that the best solution is to have the workers pay the money back over time. To fire them outright would ignore the companies fault in the matter and to let it slide would ignore the workers fault according to the deal.
Another approach is Kantian Ethics. Kant introduces the idea of universal laws. What he means by this is that if everyone can’t do it, then you shouldn’t do it either. His reasoning for this is that if everyone were to lie then there would be no truth. Since it’s unreasonable for everyone to lie then no one should lie. When we apply this to the hypothetical, we reach the same conclusion as contractualism. If all workers kept extra money from their employers then companies would fall. However, if all companies overpay their employees, they will also fall. Both according to Kant were in fault. So since both are in fault then both are responsible. Kant would say that the company should request that the employee pay back the extra money because it recognizes both of their responsibilities in the matter.
The last approach is Dan Ariely on dishonesty. Dan Ariely says that people tend to lie or cheat when lying or cheating benefits them. Take for example the “do I look fat in this dress” trap. No matter how they look when they ask this we always say “you look great honey” because keeping our partner happy ensures that we are happy. So in this scenario we gain happiness. The thing that is interesting here is that Dan Ariely recognizes that lying or cheating a little is part of human nature. Take the little kid who asks if someone dropped a twenty. Almost one hundred percent of the time someone will lie and say they dropped it when in actuality they didn’t. So why should we punish human nature? When President George W. Bush sent out a stimulus check during his term he didn’t punish people for keeping money that was sent to dead relatives, instead, he said to keep it because it was a government mistake. It’s part of human nature to see if they can get away with keeping the extra money. So Dan Ariely would most likely say that the company should let it slide because the workers did nothing wrong, they merely acted as humans do. However, the company is wrong for overpaying them and would have to deal with the consequences of their mistake.
Ultimately what happens to the workers is left up to the moral outlook of the manager. I personally believe in contractualism and would have them pay the money back. After all it is a contract based job. Despite this, I can’t deny that it is human nature to cheat a little. So blaming them seems to blame them for being human. Which is unreasonable. You can’t blame a dog for being a dog. Still the workers made a deal and they need to honor it just like the company should honor it because we are only as good as our word.
So now the manager, depending on their morals, can effectively handle these employees. They know their nature and they have different ways to approach the situation. Whether they choose to let them have the money or ask for it back, the employees will know that the company noticed. It’s important that the company at least shows that they noticed, because people will test their limits. It’s like the two year old who won’t leave the plastic plants alone in the hospital waiting room. Before I conclude, I want to leave you with a question. What would you do? Give the money back or let it slide? Which theory do you agree with? And why? Better yet, if you were the employee, and not the manager, would you report that you got overpaid or would you test your limits like the two workers? What justifies your reasoning?
