Free Seminar One And Five: The Holiday Case Study Example

In the case study, issues concerning Borries’ actions to the company are the main focus. The case involves Borries, his manager, Marcus his friend and Swee Lan his fiancée. As an employee of the advertising company, Borries had an obligation to serve customers but also had personal obligations to attend to (Smith, 2009).
Two things are on Borries’ mind; the decision to visit his fiancée’s parents and the request from a client. Borries’ ethical dilemma, in this case, is that he decides to undertake his company duties to serve the customer over attending to matters concerning him and his girlfriend. That meant he was to forego his holiday in which he was supposed to meet his girlfriend’s parents. By doing this, Borries displayed post-conventional stage-4 of law and social order where he is inclined to perform his duty in respect of authority and the company’s cultural order (Jennings, 2014). He also displayed consequential egoism by pursuing his self-interest over other expectations.
His manager was in a dilemma as he understood Borries’ plans but still wanted him to attend to the client owing to the urgency of the matter. That can be seen as he addresses Borries indirectly but with the intention to have him stay back and work by explaining the client’s importance. He displayed rule utilitarianism; he expected Borries to do the right thing and obey the company’s requirements. The option available in this case was for him to let his employee Borries pursue his holiday plans (Mehra, 2009).
Swee Lan’s dilemma was her reaction to Borries’ decision to commit to work. She chose to imply her parent’s reactions rather than hers. In this case, she shows an act of utilitarianism by assuming that she was not disappointed. She had an option of confronting him, Borries since it was disappointing.
Marcus is in a dilemma between respecting Borries’ will and decision that seem to let them down and his thought of what Borries should have done. Marcus displays stage 3- social expectation orientation; he thought that if he were in Borries’ shoes; he would have acted differently in order to pursue his personal goals. The option available was to echo his dissatisfaction with the company’s authority (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2014).
Since the decision depends more upon the commercial than personal factors, Swee Lan had no option other than to understand so not to jeopardize Borries’ work. If the details of her reaction are given, understanding her position would be much easier as well as the gravity of the matter. She would have adversely reacted if the matter were of great importance to her as compared to his fiancée’s company obligation (Fernando, 2010).
The group agrees to Borries’ step as he worked to prove his commitment in line with the company’s culture and manager’s wish. The group disagrees with the manger’s role to subject and compel Borries to work despite knowing about his plans. The group also approves Swee Lan’s reaction to ease the tension. The group disagrees with Marcus’ reaction because he should have respected Borries’ decision (Jennings, 2014).
If further information like Borries’ individual experience in the workplace and performance were provided, it would assist in gauging the expectations that were upon him for the specific task. Consequently, it would determine if he were warranted to forego his holiday for the company duties.

References

Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2014). Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management. Library of Congress.
Fernando, A. C. (2010). Business Ethics and Corporate Governance. Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Jennings, M. (2014). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. Cengage Learning.
Mehra, A. (2009). Advertising Management: Media Approach for Market Research. Global India Publications.
Smith, J. (2009). Normative Theory and Business Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield.
Vallance, E. (1995). Business Ethics at Work. Cambridge University Press.