To decide whether it is proper to take donation from lenders or people who applied for a loan in a bank, even if it is for charity; is ethical or unethical. The person, who has applied for the loan, will definitely provide the donation as he wants his loan to get sanctioned as soon as possible. The officers who are in charge of the sanctioning the loan most often demands for some privileges if these are not fulfilled he in a way threat not to forward the loan or to linger and postpone the process. This is definitely unethical, but the officer on the other hand declares that the donation or the privileges were for charity and thus there is nothing unethical about it. Since the customers can afford it, they should be made a part of this donation scheme. It is moral and very much ethically preferred. The problem of justifying these kinds of demands remains static in most of the cases where the donor donates only for the sake of his loan to get sanctioned on time. The donor donates because he does not want to offend the officer.
This is a kind of conflict that has been marked between Loan Officer and the Debtors of First National Federal Bank, Ben Garrison and the loan officers, Shelby Grant. The case is about Doug Whitton, a rancher who wanted some loans from First National Federal Bank for a plot. Whitton has made all the arrangements for the officers of the bank to give an on-site evaluation visit and to sanction the loan. According to Ben Garrison it is fine if he is spending for the visits of the officers, but for Shelby Grant it is unethical and the bank should actually spend for these kinds of visit. She clarifies the situation if the loan gets rejected by the norms of the bank then they will feel sorry for taking such privileges. But Garrison does not find anything unethical about it. For him it is the willingness of Whitton and thus the bank should not feel about it. Apart from these kinds of privileges, Garrison also asks Shelby to call up all those customers who want loans and to ask them to donate something for First National Federal’s annual fundraiser picnic. For Shelby this too is unethical and asks Garrison about its validity. Garrison finds no way to call these acts as unethical since the fund that will be raised will go for charity. But for Shelby to ask the customers for such donations, just because they applied for a loan is unethical. Shelby is confused about these kinds of proceedings and is amidst severe confusions. She could not justify the acts and at the same tome an integral part of the entire system.
The problem of accepting things in return of something that is due to a person is a common ethical dealing. It is sometimes hard to decide whether it is ethical to ask for some donation from a person, just because you can bring him some financial profits. This has been exemplified in case of conflict between Ben Garrison and Shelby Grant of First National Federal Bank and refers to all those banks that ask the customers to make donation against the application of loan asked by them. The banks that provide loans often try to get some additional investments from their lenders. This is an issue that gets counted under ethical justifications.
As declared by Wagner and Simpson (2008) The question of being ethical has been usually understood as a context under personal standards of considering a matter as right and wrong. Some things are correct as per some persons, whereas the same thing can be wrong for others. It all depends on how the person has perceived the thing and how he has dealt with his justifications to justify his decision. The ethics that a person uses to justify his decisions or the mode of making decisions is usually needs to get informed by various sources. It is his responsibility to be conscious in making a decision and thereby recognizing all these influences that effects the decision making structure. A person always has the opportunity and the intention to justify his decision. For this purpose he structures his mind and manipulates his thoughts towards the point that seems more preferable to him. To a great extent the decisions to be made in terms of ethical notions are backed y the ethical code of nature that the individual usually develops.
This code of nature can be either individualistic or can be organizational. According to Adler (2006) the factors that structures one’s decision gets influenced under the format of markets, communities and the hierarchies in which he is living. These are the three different peripheries that actually make ways to resolve or to make an ethical decision for a person. On the contrary it was Adler and Gundersen, (2007) refused to accept these factors. According to him the matters of collusion or the instances of collaboration between decision making syndromes can be constructive. It can be very individualistic in nature and may not be as per the demands of the \community in which the person is living. For Adler on the one "Communities" can be the factor for making an uncorrupted decision. The community can inspire to remain more ethical correct to itself and so will be the decision. However, on the other hand Adler and Gundersen's considered community itself as the root cause for creating confusions about making an ethical decision. Since you cannot live without community there are some structures that can go against your own justifications and to meet them you might need to struggle hard against the community. In a way society in that case can turn up to be source of corruption.
In case of Shelby the context led by Adler and Gundersen seems more justifying. She has got contradictions in her mind as she has got individualistic point of views regarding the privileges and the donation from the clients. On the other hand it is the community led by people like Garrison who are instigating her to do something that looks unethical to Shelby’s individualistic approach. To make a decision according to her individualistic approach will be hard to follow since the entire community will go against her. However she even cannot conclude her decision against something that is so unethical to her. There is also a factor of bearing the power. Since she is just a fresher usually she will not have much support over her decisions. If she were the boss, then of course she would have preferred to follow her individualistic note, but now being junior employee she has no power then to follow what Garrison is asking for. Shelby is however a determined soul and surely wants to have a mid way ethical solution to all these practices. She is the one who wants to have a solution that will be as per her individual ethical structure and also will compromise with the community format.
The solution that can be forwarded to a situation like above is very much related to personal persuasions. This means that there is a need for personal persuasion in making people understand what exactly you feel and how you want things to be done. This is a procedure that needs mush personal efforts and well crafted personal skills to convince the other person. For Shelby to take a chance for such an issue is not that easy but she also cannot ignore the hold that Garrison has got over the other staff members of her office. Being a fresher she has got hardly anyone to be on her side. This is the reason that she needs to act with more patience and in a very genuine way. Her approach regarding the ethical issue may turn off Garrison and that is no way good for her. She should be able to convince Garrison about her mental state. For the purpose she needs to approach him with the exact points that are troubling her. To begin with, it is very appropriate if she says that she never took anybody’s favor like that in her life, but in the profession she needs to learn lots of new things. However, since this is the first time that she is facing a situation that looks unethical to her and that she needs time to understand these systems. After that she can well ask Garrison to consider her mental state and to find a solution out of it. Since Garrison ill never pay for the on-site evaluation, Shelby must tell him that she is ready to pay the fare. It now depends on Shelby how much she compromises with her financial loss n context to her individualistic ethical ideology. If she is comfortable with that then she has to pay for the transportation cost for the on-site evaluation and will be relieved from taking any favor from Mr. Whitton. The point is she needs to convince Garrison for this solution with a more humble manner. Garrison in no way should feel that she is trying to empower his ideologies and trying to prove him wrong. This will worsen the situation. Shelby’s approach should be genuine and she should be very balanced with her approach.
As for the issue of collecting donations from the customers for the First National Federal’s annual fundraiser picnic, Shelby can ignore the process but that will create rivalries within the office. People will not like her attitude and might oppose her existence. As the matter is all about being ethical nobody likes to be pointed as unethical and thus Shelby’s participation is very important. To deal with her individual ideology, Shelby must approach Garrison and has to tell him that she wants the names of her customers written on the donated stuff. This will give them recognition and that will make the charity collection worth for them. From her side she can request the customers about the issue of charity without making them feel pressurized. She needs to tell them that it is all their willingness that she respects more and that this has got nothing to do with the loan that they have applied for. This will show the professionalism in Shelby and the client will also understand the value to give something for charity. Since their name and the name of their organization will be marked on the packets there is no chance that they will come up with something cheap. Recognition is something that every businessman wish to have and thus this solution will definitely fit into the ethical norms of Shelby.
The strength of these solutions is related to the participation of the donors in the activities. This also brings a positive image to First National Federal. The loyalty and the self respect of the officers will be well marked y the customers and that will make them being more sincere with the process of paying off the installments for the loan.
The weakness is that if the donors do not understand the sincere thoughts of the bank officials then that will make them feel that they are superior to these people and will never remain obliged to them.
The opportunity that gets added to these approaches is related to the reputation of First National Federal. Since the officers do not take any privilege from their clients more people will try to be a part of the bank and it will help in creating a positive reputation of the bank in the market.
The threats to these solutions can lie compact to Shelby. Her attempts to bring in some ethical elements to the organizational format might create negative attitudes among the colleagues in the bank. If the donation from her side is of considerably good amount that she is safe, otherwise people will never consider her decisions in the organization.
The solutions provided above needs enough mental strength and a very good personal persuasion. If Shelby has got the same then she can well apply them; otherwise she have to follow what Garrison has asked her to do. The solutions are
- To convince Garrison in taking out the expense for on-site evaluation from the bank
- To provide the travelling expense for on-site evaluation from Shelby’s own pocket
- To declare the donor’s names on the items that they donate and to convince that this has got nothing to do with the loan that they applied.
- To convince the customers about the need for charity and their recognition on the contrary to follow the instructions of Garrison and avoid taking risk within the organization. To follow Garrison will be a tough job for Shelby, and she has to convince her individual ethical aspects against the organizational point of views. If she can convince herself with the fact that she is no more independent to make an ethical decision like that and the job is very important for her; then she has to follow the organizational ethical notions against her own.
It is noteworthy here to consider that there is a general tendency to support society in general. In case of Shelby the possibilities are that she will start believing the organizational ethical structure and will compromise with her own. If her points and approach is convincing then she can play the ball as per her will. Since societies too accept ethical persuasions the approach of Shelby will decide the right form of scenario to be adopted in the organization. It is important to consider the thought of Carus (2005) that society in general believe in the following structure;
- belief and follow the norms of safety over the issues of doubt and obvious risk,
- fairness, appropriate consent and preference of duty over the issues of dissent,
- knowledge from structured culture, instead of vague ignorance,
- trust and the elements of honesty over unethical habits of lying
- to be against all those proceedings that the respective culture considers as evil
It is thus will be the sole responsibility of Shelby to convince Garrison and the other office members about the unethical practices. It is necessary that she first justify herself with the solutions and then proceed with the approach of convincing the society. As a matter of fact the task is not that hard to adopt since society in general prefers the ways that Shelby thinks as ethical. Of under any circumstances, Shelby cannot articulate her thoughts properly then she might face repulsions. It depends on her skill to convince people as per her decisions. A failure in the same can create risks for her.
The alternative choice is thus to follow the instructions of Garrison in initial stage and when she will be have hold over the origination and people to support her she can come up with these solutions. Since the matter is also about using power and support, Shelby must have the same to offer her proposal. It is thus can be a choice to wait for some more months and to have people on her favor to act as per the individual ethical point of view.
The aforesaid solutions can be managed by following some simple steps. Since there can be two kinds of decisions to be taken the steps can be distributed accordingly. In case of implementing the solutions on instant basis, Shelby must follow the following steps;
Step 1.To approach Garrison about her mental dilemma
Step 2. To convince him that she is willing to follow her instructions but needs time
Step 3. To request him to consider her proposals on initial stage
Step 4. To ask for being paid by the bank
Step 5. To offer expense from her own pocket
Step 6. To meet or call the customers
Step 7. To request them about the donation for charity
Step 8. To make them understand the value of being recognized
Step 9. To tag the donated staff with the donators name and the name of the organization
By following these steps Shelby can well establish the ethical point of view in the organization. However in the process she also must be very conscious of not offending anyone. Her considerations should be genuine and she must show a liberal attitude than a stubborn one. Since Garrison is already a much stubborn kind of person, Shelby must handle the issue with care.