+1 (218) 451-4151
glass
pen
clip
papers
heaphones

Hello Solutions Pro, here are Week 5 DB assignment and responses. Thank you.Week 5 DB…

Hello Solutions Pro, here are Week 5 DB assignment and responses. Thank you.Week 5 DB…

Hello Solutions Pro, here are Week 5 DB assignment and responses. Thank you.Week 5 DB assignment:Assignment DetailsA very prestigious events planning firm, Verlon, has approached John Sanders, vice president of Echo Industries to secure a contract as a vendor. The president of Verlon Events Planning would like Echo Industries to consider their company for planning Echo’s several corporate upcoming conventions. Echo hosts 3 large events per year, which results in the awarding of more than $500,000 dollars in contracts. David Smith is in charge of researching suppliers and vendors for Echo Industries to ensure compliance with their ethics department. One of the ethical stipulations for awarding contracts is that agreements cannot be awarded to relatives of upper management employees. Vice president Sander, David’s boss, recommends Verlon catering as a choice, and states to David, “There is not a need to do research on the Verlon, I can vouch for the company.” He also states that David would be up for a promotion if the upcoming events are successful. David is excited about this news; he was unemployed for 2 years before landing his present position 6 months ago. A promotion would certainly help him catch up on bills and provide for his family of four. However, out of curiosity about the Verlon company, David conducted some research. He discovered that the Verlon Event Planning’s president is the ex-sister-in-law to his boss. At the monthly general finance meeting for approving contracts, the finance manager, William Young, asks David two questions: “Is the company reputable?” “Would there be a conflict of interest according to our company policies?” Vice president Sanders and William looks in David’s direction for the answers.Consider this ethical dilemma, and then answer the following:Part 1From a deontological perspective, what should David do in this situation?Should David have discussed the research findings with his boss before the meeting? Why? What is at risk here?What ramifications, if any would David answers have for the companies? For David?What library sources might you offer to support your positions here? How do they differ from your ideas?Part 2Have you ever been placed in a situation such as this one? What decisions did you have to make? What was the outcome?Discuss with 2 or more classmates their positions and responses to the ethical dilemma presented.In your own words, please post a response to the Discussion Board and comment on other postings. You will be graded on the quality of your postings. Week 5 DB response to classmates:Michael Brown                       In this case, David is asked to look the other way and avoid doing what he was hired to do, ensure compliance with the ethics department.  In return, the vice president suggests David might have a promotional opportunity open up if he does look the other way.  From a deontological perspective, David should do what is right for his job, or duty he was assigned, and notify William Young of the conflict with regards to the relationship between Verlon and Vice President Sander.  Deontological ethics states, one must do what is right and honest for the duty assigned, not for the personal gain or interest (Kant, n.d.). If David chooses to discuss his research findings with William Young, his job may be in jeopardy.  David is going against what the vice president of the company told him to obey policies.  The vice president likely has the ability to fire David, or demote him.  However, I believe David should discuss his research.  This goes against his moral character and there is a slight chance it could still work out in his benefit.  I think the delivery of this research is the critical part.  If he tells everything the vice president told him, David would likely suffer the consequences.  If David was able to swing the delivery of this news in a way where the vice president didn’t look like he was trying to sneak this by, David will send a message to the vice president of his ethics and at the same time will not throw the vice president under the bus, so to speak. The ramifications of David’s answer to this dilemma would be financial related.  It could cost Verlon the contract, which would cost them money.  It would cost David’s company nothing, other than finding a new company to cater the event.  As for David, the ramifications could be anywhere from a loss of his job to a promotion. The M.U.S.E. for this week would help support my position with this ethical dilemma.  Also, in the below listed reference by Immanuel Kant, he supports my position that David should do what is right for the duties he was hired to do.  Far too many people do what they think is right for themselves instead of what is right for their duties, which leads to corruption and other negative outcomes.   I have not been placed in a predicament such as the aforementioned situation David was placed in.  I do know of other people who have, which the end results could have been termination if he lied.  My friend decided to do the right thing and stood up for his duties.  In this particular situation he was rewarded for his honesty rather than suffer negative impacts for being honest. ReferencesKant, Immanuel. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/ethicsbook/c3612.html