Summary Of Ethical Dilemmas By Kevin Hunsaker

Hunsaker Ethical Dilemma
Kevin Hunsaker, HP’s Chief Ethics Officer,was intentionally engaged and a part of an immoral, unethical, and legally questionable practice(7.1.6.3). It is highly thought that Hunsakerencountered an ethical dilemma towards his involvement to investigation. For exploring thisethical dilemma and other ethical issues in this assignment, Kitchener’s (1984) five moralprinciples of ‘autonomy’, ‘Non-maleficence’, ‘Beneficence’, ‘Justice’, and ‘Fidelity’ are used asthe ethical guideline. According to Forester-Miller and Davis (1996):
• Non-maleficence “is the concept of not bringing any damage to the others. This theory reveals the concept of not harming someone intentionally and also not being a part of the activities that
Regarding Hunsaker’s ethical dilemma, ‘non-maleficence’ and ‘fidelity’ comprise the area of moral conflict in which, he was not obligated to violate the employee’s rights of informational privacy (Crane and Patten, 2010, p.304) in one side, and he shall trust Dunn as the chair woman and other chief executives in the other side. In addition to this, “the main tasks of a manager is to manage the property of shareholders in their interests” (Crane and Matten, 2010, p.238). The narrative of scandal reflects that he, in struggle between them, gave priority to his duty and loyalty to Dunn and the executive team not The HP Way(7.1.1).In conclusion, adoption of the old fashion ethical framework of Kitchener’s (1984) Five Moral Principles was the main reason for Hunsaker’s failure in his ethical dilemma. Furthermore, his ethical behavior violates the second maxim of ‘categorical imperative’ which stresses “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (Crane and Matten, 2010, p.105). However, giving emphasis to ‘utilitarianism ‘and ‘rights and justice’ ethics were more in line with HP’s shared values such as welfare of
Perhaps, from the Dunn’s viewpoint, executing a confidential investigation, veiled from the control of government authorities and the legal corporations, was the best ensuring way to deal with very influential board members; because any exposure could alert the leaker, and consequently decrease the chance of success. The ethical reasoning of Dunn states that to be autonomous and gain control of the investigation process Dunn paid less consideration and staked set of laws, and related policies and processes for gathering information in the investigation (Forester-Miller and Davis, 1996). While tackling the leakage issues, Dunn acted in accordance to Anglo-American model of corporate governance in which the focus is on financial objectives and stock market (Crane and Matten, 2010, p.241). Above all, Dunn, fully considered the interest of shareholders as well as her self-interest of spying on the board(7.1.18); while she did not consider the stake and rights of ‘employees’, ‘government and regulations’, and ‘civil society’ (like reporters and news agencies as pressure groups).Dunn, in her ethical decision-making, put emphasis to consequences rather than moral principles like ‘beneficence’ which requires ordinates to act for good of subordinates, be proactive in benefit them, and prevent