Technology

Executive Summary
Concept Software Solutions (CSS) board has taken steps not to disclose the existence of defects in its software to its consumers. The decision is clearly motivated by corporate goals and does not consider the interest of consumers and the varied viewpoints held by the employees. By referencing existing ethical frameworks and the ethical and unethical decision making framework proposed by Bommer et al (1987), the study highlights the different factors that influence ethical decision making and the ethical values involved in the case. Evidently, there are some competing values that can be reconciled if various stakeholders are willing to compromise. This could have been attained had different stakeholders been involved in making the decision on disclosure.

Introduction
Ethical and professional dilemmas are common place in workplaces due to competing values and consideration. Generally, businesses have to ensure that they act ethically mainly because their reputation is moulded by the values they relay in their actions. This paper analyses an ethical scenario facing Concept Software Solutions (CSS) to determine the competing values and develop recommendations on what can be done to address the situation. It is noteworthy that the discussions are only limited to Concept Software Solutions case. Businesses have an obligation to act ethically and take responsibility for their action irrespective of the consequences that they may face. This is not only the responsibility of the executive managers but is shared by other junior employees since they are also affected by the firms operations. This report entails a review of professional, social and organizational values coupled with the use of Bommer et al (1987) model of ethical and unethical decision making to determine the competing values in the case and formulation of recommendations on what should be done to rectify the situation.

Analysis of the Problem
CSS is a firm that is first developing at a global scale. Over half of the companys growth is in the corporate, higher education and education segments. It is therefore evident that a large proportion of its market is made up of corporate rather than individual consumers. Development of a positive reputation in the market plays an important role in attracting corporate clients since they do not interact directly with products as opposed to individual consumers. It is therefore expected that CSS would go along way to develop measures that would protect its image and the perception of its products in the market.

CSS uses a team approach in software development. The team members who often work extra hours are defined by diverse backgrounds and beliefs. This is brought out in the conversation between Angela and David where the former thinks that the latter is jealous because of his comments on dating someone she has met over the internet. Clearly, David and Angela are characterized by different values and beliefs on dating.

After Angelas promotion, it comes to her notice that the board has decided not to inform its customers of faulty products. Though the move also proposes sending patches to its customers as a corrective measure as opposed to informing the customers, it is evident that there are some customers that may be affected by faulty products. Another aspect that comes out clearly is that the main rationale in not informing the customers is protecting the firms reputation in the market. Another important observation is that the junior employees like David who are actually responsible for the development of software development are unaware of the measure that has been taken by the board.
David who is a devout Christian discovers that the company has defective products and has decided not to inform the clients. He makes this discovery while violating a confidentiality and privacy code by reading through an email meant for Angela. In addition, David takes the step to inform another employee of his discovery which is representative of relay of confidential information. Unknown to David, he is being watched since the company has installed cameras in the premises. Monitoring employees in a manner that is akin to spying on them or simply without their knowledge is unprofessional though, the ethicality of such a measure is debatable. Thus the questionable acts in the case in include monitoring employees without their knowledge, accessing and sharing confidential information and non-disclosure of information on harmful products to customers.

Stakeholders
There are various stakeholders involved in the case. It is evident that the board of directors is divided on whether to inform the clients though a decision has already been made. The board of directors is a major stakeholder for it makes decisions that have to be upheld by the employees (Ghosh, 2008). It is noteworthy that the decision made is not to inform the consumers. Employees are the other stakeholders involved in the case. Employees are tied by professional obligations to conform to the decisions made by the board of directors and act professionally and in a manner that is for the good of the company (McNamara, Dennis,  Carte, 2008). The employees who include the middle levels managers like Angela and low level employees like David are characterized by different personal values. Angela for instance is not apprehensive of dating a stranger and even worked as a web designer for her uncle who was in the pornography industry. On the other hand, David is known to stand up for others rights and is a devout Christian.

Another group of stakeholders that have to be considered in analyzing the case is the consumers. CSS is operational mainly to meet the expectations and needs of its clients so as to generate revenues. Attracting clients with deep pockets and protecting the reputation of the company are the two main reasons for not disclosing the errors (Sekerka,  Bagozzi, 2007). This reason highlights the importance awarded to creating a positive image and attracting consumers. On the other hand, there is the possibility that there are some consumers who are using faulty products without knowing that they are faulty. Such consumers who are in higher education or other corporate circles are likely to make losses as a result of failure by CSS to disclose the faults in its products. Another important consideration is that since the company intends to send patches that will help rectify the existing problems and is determined not to inform the clients of the existing faults, it will clearly make up a story to accompany the distribution of the patches.

The owners of the company are the other stakeholders that have to be considered in analyzing the problem. The problem affects the reputation of the firm and has the potential of influencing share prices and even returns on investment. Evidently, news of faulty products may have considerable effects on the perception of the brand in the market on the other hand, news of failure to disclose such findings by the company may be catastrophic on the image of the company and therefore its financial performance. Therefore, the company owners have to be considered in the case for their equity in the company may be affected by the direction adopted in the firm (Andolsen, 2006). Though the community that the company operates in is a stakeholder in the company, they are minimally affected in the case. The only effect is that the decision made by the company not to disclose may be against the beliefs held by a majority or even a minority in the community.

Competing Values
There are various competing values that have been highlighted in the specific case. First, breach of confidentiality is a professional issue that could get David fired. Perusing through confidential documents with the knowledge that they are confidential and proceeding to share the information with other employees is unprofessional irrespective of the information that has been retrieved. It is noteworthy that though David was overcome by natural human curiosity he is well aware that perusing through confidential documents could get him fired. It is noteworthy that as a Christian David is required to respect the privacy of other people. Therefore, from a deontological perspective Davids perusal of confidential documents is unethical (Miao-Ling, 2006). A teleological perspective that focuses on the outcome of the actions could on the other hand lead to the declaration of Davids actions as ethical. Clearly, non-disclosure by CSS could result in tremendous losses by the customers (Miao-Ling, 2006). Commercial values highlight the importance that businesses should award to ensuring that their products or services do not cause harm to consumers. Producers and businesses have an obligation to inform the consumers of any negative effects of their products that come to their notice before and after production. It is evident that CSS does not in any way intend to inform its clients of the faults it has discovered in its product. Disclosure to the consumers is weighting against the responsibility that the company has to its owners and the employees. CSS has to generate revenues to remain operational on the other hand, any event that may result in the development of a negative mage for the company ought to be addressed for it may affect revenue earnings and the companys ability to cater for the expectations and needs of its consumers.

Kantianism highlights the importance of what ought to be done (Walker,  Ivanhoe, 2007). CSS as a firm is required by its obligation to its consumers to ensure that they are informed of any negative effects that their products may have. Existence of quality control boards and standards authorities in nations are all out of the need to ensure that consumers are protected from poor services and products. Therefore, Davids actions under this theoretical consideration can be looked as ethical since the company should adopt a policy of full disclosure to issues affecting employees and customers. David has taken a step in the direction of what ought to be done and is therefore acting ethically from this perspective.

Act utilitarianism does not provide a conclusive analysis of the facts in the case. First, there are various stakeholders involved in the case which makes it hard to priorities who should be considered as important (Walker,  Ivanhoe, 2007). Other stakeholder for instance the employees and the owners of the company can be affected whether the company chooses to disclose or not. Disclosure as an example could result in loss of revenues and thinning of the market base which may result in lay-offs and losses. On the other had, should the company be discovered to have known and failed to disclose the existence of faults in its products the employees and owners will all be negatively affected (Edgar, 2002). Determining the degree of loss in either case is not easy thus, the adoption of act utilitarianism in the case results in inconclusive analysis.

Monitoring employees in a professional setting is a measure that seeks to improve security and ensure professionalism. On the other hand, spying on employees which is the case in the study is unprofessional. Spying on employees goes not only against professional ethics but also commercial values.

Relevant Professional Codes
Producing products that are harmful to consumers goes against licensing (Bommer et al, 1987). Licensing is a mechanism aimed at controlling the activities of firms so as to minimize any negative effects that they may have on consumers and mitigate the risks of exploiting product or service users (Brooks,  Dunn, 2009). Therefore, violation of this requirement and taking steps that try to hide this fact may go against licensing requirements. Professional code of ethics is also applicable in the case. David and Angela are professionals that are governed by similar professional codes. While Angela has chose to stay quiet, David will most likely take measures that seek to fight for the rights of the consumers. Therefore, though professional codes require David to be loyal to CSS and therefore the decisions made by the board, as a professional he is required to blow the whistle on any activities that he considers unlawful and immoral. Thus, professional codes do not provide an effective platform to addressing the dilemma presented in the case. Though it highlights the importance of personal values and personal perception of authority and the decisions made by the board of directors, professional codes cannot be used to analyze fully the ethical value of a decision made by an employee (Bommer et al, 1987).

Application of Bommer et al (1987) Model
Bommer et al (1987) developed a model that could help organizations identify factors that affect ethical and unethical behaviour within. The model highlights a number of variables that are considered critical to the adoption of ethical behaviour within a firm. There are various factors that are considered by managers and even employees when making decisions that have ethical implications. Evidently, the decisions by the board not to disclose its findings, the decision that will be made by David and the decision by Angela to go by the boards recommendations can be viewed as result of various extrinsic and intrinsic variables.

The decision making process is affected by information acquisition, cognitive process, perceived rewards, perceived losses and information processing (Rajeev,  Bhattacharyya, 2007). These critical decision processing factors are influenced by professional, personal, work, social and government environments. Moreover, personal attributes are influential on the decision process. A review of the decision making process in the board, by David and by Angela reveals that these forces are in action.
The decision made by the board clearly disregards humanistic values and is against the licensing requirements. The decision by the board is driven by corporate goals and the need for the company to improve its performance. It is noteworthy that as a professional organization, CSS has to ensure that professional codes of ethics are upheld. Though the personal environment and attributes do not play a role in the decisions made by the board, the organization, government and social environments are clearly influential (Bommer et al, 1987). The board in disregarding humanistic and government environments in making its decisions creates an impression of its decisions being unethical, immoral and illegal.

The decision made by Angela to go by the boards decision is largely affected by personal environment and attitudes. Angela is a former pornographic web designer and has no qualms with dating a guy she has met over the internet. Angela is open to ideas and does not evaluate ideas as per how they are viewed by a majority in the society. The personal environment appears to have had an effect on the decision making process adopted by Angela. Interacting with family members that are in the pornography industry may have affected Angelas cognition of morality and the need to stand up for other peoples rights (Bommer et al, 1987). This is a personal environment factor. The professional environments may have also affected Angelas decision. As a middle level employee, Angela is required to transform the boards decisions into strategies. Therefore, not questioning the decision made by the board is in line with professional codes requirement for all professionals to abide by their clients or employers decisions. Evidently, the government and social environments are not influential on the decision made by Angela. The existing work policies that highlight the roles and obligations of project managers and system analysts may have affected the decision made by Angela. This is a manifestation of the effect that the work environment has on ethical decision making in a firm.

The decision made by David is a result of environmental factors that are similar to Angelas cases though their manifestation is different. Unlike Angela, David is known to be a devout Christian that goes all the way to ensure that peoples rights are upheld. This implies that David is highly influenced by Christian values and is more likely to take on decisions that are representative of religious values and that are viewed as moral by others. This implies that religion which is a social environment factor and morality which is a personal attribute play considerable roles in decision made by David. Informing Josephine who is also a member of the local church is a move that is clearly motivated by the Christian value of seeking a second opinion before making decisions. Work environment manifested in the existing policies may also affect decisions made by David. Clearly, Davids job is on the line considering that he acquired the information illegally. This is a factor that may considerably affect the decision made by David. Personal environment factors for instance what his family will think and the ideas presented by Josephine may also affect the decision made by David. Though the legal environment is not influential on the decision made by David, the professional codes that emphasize that employees should uphold their integrity as members of the society as well as employees may push David into seeking disclosure which is an ethical measure in this case.

Questionable Acts
Non-disclosure of information on fabulists products by the board of directors is both illegal and unethical. Though the measure seeks to preserve the professional integrity of the firm, it only serves the interests of CSS while ignoring other entities. Accessing and distributing confidential information is unprofessional and unethical. However, such line of action is not illegal since it is only restricted to an organisation. Spying on employees is unethical and unprofessional. It is noteworthy that though spying on employees infringes on their right to privacy, the fact that David was being spied when within the premises of the firm makes such line of action within the limits of the law since the premises belong to the firm.

Solutions
CSS had other two optional approaches that may have eliminated or reduced the seriousness of the ethical and legal implications of its decision. One option that could have been adopted by CSS is involving all stakeholders in making the decision. The confidential approach adopted in addressing the issue is part of the problem since it does not allow for the incorporation of varied views and perspectives in the decision. Inclusion of varied perspectives in making the decision would have ensured that every stakeholder is prepared to deal with the impact of the overall decision. Another approach that CSS could have adopted is informing the consumers of the defects in the products and the measures that have been adopted in addressing the problem. Such a move would reduce the risk of erroneous use of the products though it may be costly on the firm. Though such a move may be costly, it is way better than disclosure after the company has decided not to disclose the defects to the consumers. The first approach is better for it ensures the development of consensus within the company which ensures that employees are aware of the dilemma and take responsibility of the direction adopted by the firm. This will help address the risks of conflicts resulting from varied viewpoints and different personal environments that affect decision making among the employees.