Ethical Dilemmas and Stakeholder Impact in Business

In this scenario, the primary stakeholders are the employees, which in turn affect the customers, the shareholders, the suppliers, and the community. If Roger Jacobs is allowed to remain at Shellington Pharmaceuticals and continue his current unethical behavior, the employees of the company will not be satisfied by this outcome. Their constant mistreatment would contribute to low morale that could heavily affect their work performance and how they interact with customers. Consequently, if the customers are not treated fairly by the employees, they could turn their backs on the company and stop supporting their business. This worst-case scenario would result in the loss of profits for the company, affecting the shareholders financially. With the loss of customers and low profits, Shellington Pharmaceuticals would not only garner an unfavorable reputation within the community, but the company would potentially be unable to pay the suppliers for the products that they need to continue operating their business.

In the opposite scenario in which Roger Jacobs is fired from the organization, the primary stakeholders would still be greatly affected, but for the better. In this case, the employees would be free of the constant harassment that they are accustomed to. Without Jacobs’ inappropriate behavior and derogatory remarks, their performance would improve significantly because the employees would now be able to focus more intently on their work. Thus, by regaining an appreciation for their jobs, the employees will positively improve the company’s customer relations, leading to greater customer satisfaction and a higher likelihood of returning customers. Having more satisfied customers means that the business will earn more profit. As a direct result, Shellington will not owe any money to its shareholders and the company will be able to continue buying from their suppliers and supplying medication to the community at large.

There are several problems with the way Shellington Pharmaceuticals treats its employees. The most pervasive issue is that the company does not appear to mediate interpersonal conflict among its employees effectively. For instance, the work environment at Shellington is not physically nor psychologically safe due to the several counts of sexual harassment from Jacobs and his verbal mistreatment towards his subordinates. The fact that this unethical behavior keeps reemerging highlights the possibility that the numerous complaints from the disgruntled employees are not being addressed properly, and that the perpetrator – Roger Jacobs, in this case – is not being adequately disciplined for his actions. Further, it can be inferred that the president of the company has financial gain as his top priority since he insists that Harry Rull let Jacobs’ behavior go unnoticed due to his success.

There are also a few issues with the way employees at Shellington are treating the organization. For instance, since an employee can only be dismissed from a company based on his or her work performance, it is possible that Roger Jacobs—having received many stellar performance reviews – is taking advantage of this policy and getting away with his unprofessional conduct without the fear of termination. Another issue is that the charges of sexual harassment against Jacobs have been dropped several times. This could have resulted from a lack of evidence, implying that the employees that pressed charges may not have been entirely honest about the situation. Honesty about private matters is an ethical quality that employees must possess to treat a company with the respect that they expect in return.

To manage and promote ethical behavior in the company, Shellington Pharmaceuticals must first reinstate its values with top management. In lieu of allowing managers like Roger Jacobs to go unscathed after committing multiple transgressions, the president of the company should acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and realize that by allowing this to happen, he is contributing to an unethical organization culture. To prevent this from occurring, top management should appoint a committee of ethics officers to revise and clarify the code of ethics. A meeting could then be held to remind all employees of their responsibility to uphold these regulations, and a training program could be developed for those who may need further instruction. Another solution to enforce ethical behavior in the company is for Harry Rull to apply moral judgment as he carefully assesses the situation and decides the definitive outcome for Roger Jacobs’ despite his close ties with the president of the company.

Before deciding whether to terminate Roger Jacobs’ position at Shellington or reprimanding him instead, I would carefully consider my options first. If the company decides to keep Jacobs, we will continue to face demands from disgruntled employees who want their cases to be acknowledged by senior management. If Jacobs is fired, though the employees might be satisfied by the more positive work environment, the company will lose a valuable employee. Further, Shellington would face the challenge of finding someone with the same qualifications to replace him. Nonetheless, it is important to consider that in the decade that Jacobs has been with the company, he has been reprimanded on multiple occasions due to his unprofessionalism. Yet, he has not treated his employees with dignity and respect, and the accusations against him have not diminished. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the company to terminate his position. Per the behavioral management perspective, I will choose the safety and well-being of my employees as a priority before moving forward as an organization.