This is the most qualified answer for two reasons (1) it allows for the greatest good for everybody (i.e. subordinates, management team, and the firm as a whole) and (2) the answer provides enough flexibility to deal with the underlying issues intrinsic in the utilitarian perspective.
The discussion is divided into two parts to provide a clearer understanding of the premises give to support the conclusions put forward here a brief discussion of utilitarianism and the actual premises that support the conclusions. The first part briefly lays out my understanding of what utilitarianism is, as well as the problems possibly encountered in using its approach. The second part provides the support to why the stand put forward in this paper defines the best utilitarian solution.
I. Understanding Utilitarianism
To judge a moral situation from the utilitarian point of view entails pursuing the greatest happiness principle. To determine the proper course of action from this perspective is to reflect on the idea of whether a particular action can bring the greatest amount of good to benefit the highest number of people. If the action indeed pursues the highest amount of good to benefit the many, it is justified by the utilitarian approach.
Analyzing the dilemma in this fashion may sound so simple. But it is important to consider the fact that the theory itself suffers from observations that can undermine the strength of its arguments. Thus, to judge a situation from the utilitarian point of view entails giving a solution that can adequately address every possible loophole in the theory.
Certain notions that require clarifications are what it means to be happy, how do you measure happiness (if it can be measured in the first place), is the view on what happiness is the same for everyone, if what people perceive as happiness amounts to something good (or morally right) as well, etc. Attempts to resolve these internal issues within the theory resulted to the existence of the different sub-theories that are nevertheless, utilitarian in nature. Each theory has its own underlying presumptions and beliefs.
Thus, it is necessary to identify the categories and considerations that form the specific utilitarian framework of the moral solution to a particular situation. Jeremy Bentham argues that happiness is quantifiable and so the amount of happiness a particular action can bring about can be measured. Bentham developed a calculus for it. On the other hand, J.S. Mill differentiates among the kinds of pleasure and argued that what is considered pleasurable for one person is not necessarily for the common good of everyone or of the greatest number. This difference between the utilitarian theory advocated by Bentham and that of J.S. Mill are just one of the most remarkable points of view made under the utilitarian perspective.
The greatest challenge in using the utilitarian approach is perhaps on the definition of happiness. How one should define happiness is a prior issue that needs to be resolved before anyone can maintain that a certain action brings it about. In trying to answer this, a person will have to face another set of issues like what determines the qualifications or authority of a certain thing to be called the happiness. Further, it can also be asked, where does the authority of a particular set of standards that is applied to determine what is good come from Basically, Mill tried to resolve those by saying that the happiness should be what will be for the betterment of the society, or in a particular group. On first glance, it sounds good enough. But to take that for an answer, it will bring us again to the question of whether in the end, the good will simply be determined by a certain elite opinion.
Admittedly, in reality, the power or significance of an opinion is determined by how influential the person is who utters them. Further, in reality, there are political and business considerations that should be taken into account. By doing so, we might end up serving the interest of a particular elite group no matter how smaller their number is against other groups because of those limitations. Point is, the good may not be determined by the greatest number but instead, by the good of a smaller number because of those important considerations. To cite some instances, instead of cutting out on advertising or status style (lavish business trips, etc.) costs, a firm may opt to terminate services of some employees instead. Further, the firm may also opt for a lay off than minimize the companys profits.
II. The Arguments
Seemingly, I have given an answer that is bordering between I know something and I do not know anything fields. Basically, to understand the argument it is essential to note that there are three factors that I have considered here which influenced my judgment. These factors include psychological, legalities or formalities in a business structure, and the differences existing among the theories under the utilitarian perspective.
Premises Based on Legalities or Formalities in Business Structure
It seems that, in this context, the lay-off is still under consideration by a particular committee and is not yet scheduled to be released to the public domain.
There are certain policies and ethical standards that govern the management team as well about how they make employees know about certain issues.
As the lay-off is a sensitive matter, it is something that should be handled following the firms standard procedures.
It seems that, in this case, the manager is no position to answer any queries about lay-off despite the fact that the he already knows because the announcement has not been made official yet. The manager is not in any position to announce a lay-off because the options are still under review.
Speaking about the lay-off may be pre-emptive. It may create certain apprehensions and misapprehensions that may impact how subordinates performance or functionality.
Premises Based on Psychological Considerations
Whatever response the manager will have, it surely will elicit certain reactions from his ex-coworker- this is basically a human nature.
As we cannot control how others will show their reactions into words and actions, extra caution must be exercised over whatever reaction stimuli we provide for another.
Telling the person the manager knows that a lay-off is called for, and more so that it will affect the department, can cause two different possible reactions from the employee. For one, the employee can work more efficiently, in the course of him trying to save his job. The other is that, it can cause him a sufficient amount of worry, if he does not have enough confidence in himself that he will be retained. To make matters more complicated, whichever of these reactions might it be, certainly if the co-worker has known that the manager knows a lay-off is planned, the co-worker has the possibility to form certain expectations.
A subordinate might expect the manager to defend them and save them from being laid-off. Again, this is just a possibility. But indeed, it happens in real-life that subordinates might take it against the manager in the end with the thinking that the manager cannot defend his subordinates well enough.
It is important to note now that more than the level of authority the manager exercises over his subordinates, a manager has the responsibility of piloting his team. This simply means that the manager is to oversee individual performance and to ensure the welfare of the whole team every time. Sometimes the mindset towards such responsibility, at least on the level of the subordinates, goes up to the extent that the idea becomes such that whatever happens in the team, the manager is always someone to get blames no matter what- this is an impression readily adapted to by people.
The worry that may result from knowing that chances of getting laid off is there, specifically the panic, of a subordinate can be transformed into possible deliberate inefficiency (some employees who think they will be terminated just stop performing) and can affect business operations (some people who think the company will terminate them start to act revengefully and may resort to doing an anomaly that can hurt the company to show the firm that he can also do something that can affect the company so it will belike power tripping in some sense.
On counter-arguments
Lying to the employee and telling him that there are no plans, just to appease him, can expose the manager-subordinates relationship to possible conflicts. Thus, it may be considered wrong in the utilitarian perspective because it brings more harm or damages, than good, in the end. As part of the management team, it is reasonable to expect that whatever plans the corporate management may have a team manager is informed about it before the plan is executed. Every employee knows this and lying can result to a bigger consequence of losing an amount of confidence and trust your team may have on you.
Considering the context that the manager has been part of the team prior to promotion, it sounds reasonable to assume that there is a certain level of relationship and friendship that has been formed between the newly appointed manager and his previous co-workers. This results to a different level of expectations on loyalty- it may be the case that, and is usually is, that co-workers expect that their co-workers will be loyal with them. Something in that loyalty is retained even though he manager has been transferred already to a different or higher position. Lying violates that sense of loyalty and can damage the managers relationship with his subordinates. Possible consequences of lying include the subordinates holding back against the manager, which then brings about terrible and uncomfortable situations. It may not be enough to assume that you have the situation under control in the sense that only one employee asked you the question. Co-workers do talk to one another and it is impossible to assume that the others will not get to know about the lie that you have given as an answer to that particular question
The discussion is divided into two parts to provide a clearer understanding of the premises give to support the conclusions put forward here a brief discussion of utilitarianism and the actual premises that support the conclusions. The first part briefly lays out my understanding of what utilitarianism is, as well as the problems possibly encountered in using its approach. The second part provides the support to why the stand put forward in this paper defines the best utilitarian solution.
I. Understanding Utilitarianism
To judge a moral situation from the utilitarian point of view entails pursuing the greatest happiness principle. To determine the proper course of action from this perspective is to reflect on the idea of whether a particular action can bring the greatest amount of good to benefit the highest number of people. If the action indeed pursues the highest amount of good to benefit the many, it is justified by the utilitarian approach.
Analyzing the dilemma in this fashion may sound so simple. But it is important to consider the fact that the theory itself suffers from observations that can undermine the strength of its arguments. Thus, to judge a situation from the utilitarian point of view entails giving a solution that can adequately address every possible loophole in the theory.
Certain notions that require clarifications are what it means to be happy, how do you measure happiness (if it can be measured in the first place), is the view on what happiness is the same for everyone, if what people perceive as happiness amounts to something good (or morally right) as well, etc. Attempts to resolve these internal issues within the theory resulted to the existence of the different sub-theories that are nevertheless, utilitarian in nature. Each theory has its own underlying presumptions and beliefs.
Thus, it is necessary to identify the categories and considerations that form the specific utilitarian framework of the moral solution to a particular situation. Jeremy Bentham argues that happiness is quantifiable and so the amount of happiness a particular action can bring about can be measured. Bentham developed a calculus for it. On the other hand, J.S. Mill differentiates among the kinds of pleasure and argued that what is considered pleasurable for one person is not necessarily for the common good of everyone or of the greatest number. This difference between the utilitarian theory advocated by Bentham and that of J.S. Mill are just one of the most remarkable points of view made under the utilitarian perspective.
The greatest challenge in using the utilitarian approach is perhaps on the definition of happiness. How one should define happiness is a prior issue that needs to be resolved before anyone can maintain that a certain action brings it about. In trying to answer this, a person will have to face another set of issues like what determines the qualifications or authority of a certain thing to be called the happiness. Further, it can also be asked, where does the authority of a particular set of standards that is applied to determine what is good come from Basically, Mill tried to resolve those by saying that the happiness should be what will be for the betterment of the society, or in a particular group. On first glance, it sounds good enough. But to take that for an answer, it will bring us again to the question of whether in the end, the good will simply be determined by a certain elite opinion.
Admittedly, in reality, the power or significance of an opinion is determined by how influential the person is who utters them. Further, in reality, there are political and business considerations that should be taken into account. By doing so, we might end up serving the interest of a particular elite group no matter how smaller their number is against other groups because of those limitations. Point is, the good may not be determined by the greatest number but instead, by the good of a smaller number because of those important considerations. To cite some instances, instead of cutting out on advertising or status style (lavish business trips, etc.) costs, a firm may opt to terminate services of some employees instead. Further, the firm may also opt for a lay off than minimize the companys profits.
II. The Arguments
Seemingly, I have given an answer that is bordering between I know something and I do not know anything fields. Basically, to understand the argument it is essential to note that there are three factors that I have considered here which influenced my judgment. These factors include psychological, legalities or formalities in a business structure, and the differences existing among the theories under the utilitarian perspective.
Premises Based on Legalities or Formalities in Business Structure
It seems that, in this context, the lay-off is still under consideration by a particular committee and is not yet scheduled to be released to the public domain.
There are certain policies and ethical standards that govern the management team as well about how they make employees know about certain issues.
As the lay-off is a sensitive matter, it is something that should be handled following the firms standard procedures.
It seems that, in this case, the manager is no position to answer any queries about lay-off despite the fact that the he already knows because the announcement has not been made official yet. The manager is not in any position to announce a lay-off because the options are still under review.
Speaking about the lay-off may be pre-emptive. It may create certain apprehensions and misapprehensions that may impact how subordinates performance or functionality.
Premises Based on Psychological Considerations
Whatever response the manager will have, it surely will elicit certain reactions from his ex-coworker- this is basically a human nature.
As we cannot control how others will show their reactions into words and actions, extra caution must be exercised over whatever reaction stimuli we provide for another.
Telling the person the manager knows that a lay-off is called for, and more so that it will affect the department, can cause two different possible reactions from the employee. For one, the employee can work more efficiently, in the course of him trying to save his job. The other is that, it can cause him a sufficient amount of worry, if he does not have enough confidence in himself that he will be retained. To make matters more complicated, whichever of these reactions might it be, certainly if the co-worker has known that the manager knows a lay-off is planned, the co-worker has the possibility to form certain expectations.
A subordinate might expect the manager to defend them and save them from being laid-off. Again, this is just a possibility. But indeed, it happens in real-life that subordinates might take it against the manager in the end with the thinking that the manager cannot defend his subordinates well enough.
It is important to note now that more than the level of authority the manager exercises over his subordinates, a manager has the responsibility of piloting his team. This simply means that the manager is to oversee individual performance and to ensure the welfare of the whole team every time. Sometimes the mindset towards such responsibility, at least on the level of the subordinates, goes up to the extent that the idea becomes such that whatever happens in the team, the manager is always someone to get blames no matter what- this is an impression readily adapted to by people.
The worry that may result from knowing that chances of getting laid off is there, specifically the panic, of a subordinate can be transformed into possible deliberate inefficiency (some employees who think they will be terminated just stop performing) and can affect business operations (some people who think the company will terminate them start to act revengefully and may resort to doing an anomaly that can hurt the company to show the firm that he can also do something that can affect the company so it will belike power tripping in some sense.
On counter-arguments
Lying to the employee and telling him that there are no plans, just to appease him, can expose the manager-subordinates relationship to possible conflicts. Thus, it may be considered wrong in the utilitarian perspective because it brings more harm or damages, than good, in the end. As part of the management team, it is reasonable to expect that whatever plans the corporate management may have a team manager is informed about it before the plan is executed. Every employee knows this and lying can result to a bigger consequence of losing an amount of confidence and trust your team may have on you.
Considering the context that the manager has been part of the team prior to promotion, it sounds reasonable to assume that there is a certain level of relationship and friendship that has been formed between the newly appointed manager and his previous co-workers. This results to a different level of expectations on loyalty- it may be the case that, and is usually is, that co-workers expect that their co-workers will be loyal with them. Something in that loyalty is retained even though he manager has been transferred already to a different or higher position. Lying violates that sense of loyalty and can damage the managers relationship with his subordinates. Possible consequences of lying include the subordinates holding back against the manager, which then brings about terrible and uncomfortable situations. It may not be enough to assume that you have the situation under control in the sense that only one employee asked you the question. Co-workers do talk to one another and it is impossible to assume that the others will not get to know about the lie that you have given as an answer to that particular question
No comments:
Post a Comment