How Does Tom Respond to Franks Request?

How should Tom respond to Frank’s demands?

The case describes the conflicting views held by Tom Green and his boss Frank Davis. Tom was a sales executive, who excelled in his sales role, before being recently promoted to Senior Marketing Specialist at ‘D7 Displays’. D7 Displays operate self-service kiosks. Since joining his new role, Tom is struggling to see ‘eye to eye’ with Frank regarding set projected sales targets believing Frank to be delusional in his attempt to expand their existing product offering. The relationship between the pair is non-existent and Tom believes Frank is trying to get him removed as a result of their differing views. Tom is at a crossroad. He can adapt his ambitious and creative style (the same style that got him into the position) to suit Frank in order to save his role or he can lean on the relationship he has forged with even more senior personnel to explain the faults he sees in Franks doomed strategy.

The dilemma in the case is what action Tom should take next. He was warned early on by Shannon (Division Vice-President) that Frank would not have selected him to fill his current role and that in order to succeed, he would have to do better than his best to appease Frank’s aggressive growth goals for the upcoming financial period. At this stage, Tom can follow Frank’s instructions and accept the situation for what it is, thus securing his role (albeit for how long?) or alternatively continue his futile attempts to push his agenda in the hope that Frank or Shannon may come around to his suggestions.

To analyse this dilemma, we rely on the four ethical perspectives being the utilitarian, deontological, libertarian and virtue ethics perspectives. Each of these perspectives at times can reach the same conclusion. Other times however, they can be vastly different (Lloyd 1991, 202).

Côté et al. (2013, 490) describes the utilitarian perspective as maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number on the basis of “cost–benefit” analysis. The utilitarian perspective fails to account for the harms caused or the rights of others impeded en route to providing the greatest benefit. Walker (1974, 424) criticizes this perspective in that, from a moral point of view, in order to achieve the greatest good, equal harm must occur, of which regardless to whom, both matter equally.

“Utilitarian perspective often conflicts with deontological judgments, which gives priority to rights and duties” (Kant. 1959). According to Kanungo (2001, 257), the deontological perspective “considers actions to be morally right when they stem from a sense of duty or obligation toward others”. Using the deontological perspective, “individuals make moral judgments on the basis of rules and what seems fair to the people involved, even when those judgments do not provide the greatest value for the most people” (Côté et al. (2013, 490).