Leadership and Ethics: Analysis of the Moonlight Company Case

This report presents an ethical dilemma encountered at the Moonlight Company, focusing on the actions of Nirmal, Julie, and Harold Simpson. Nirmal developed an AI program and tested it on company systems without permission, also using employee bank details. Julie, Nirmal's manager, refused to buy the program and later fired Nirmal when she discovered he was consulting under the name Khan Jones. Harold, Julie's manager, supported her decision. The owner, Mary Smithers, then ordered Harold to hire Khan Jones, creating a conflict. The report uses a four-step ethical analysis process, including understanding the situation, isolating the dilemma, ethical analysis using consequentialism, rights and duties, and Kant's categorical imperative, and finally, making a defensible ethical decision. The analysis highlights the importance of ethical leadership, communication, and considering the consequences of actions within a business environment. The report suggests Julie and Harold should inform the owner about the situation, justifying their decisions and providing all relevant details to resolve the dilemma ethically.

Ethics Assignment
1

Table of Contents
Ethical Dilemma.........................................................................................................................3
Four-step Ethical Analysis and Decision Making Process........................................................4
References..................................................................................................................................8
2

Ethical Dilemma
Nirmal tested the extreme logic feature of the artificial intelligence program on the system of
Moonlight at his home without taking any kind of permission from his manager or any other
person at higher position in the company. The bank account details of the employees were
also used by Nirmal for testing. After completing different tests at home, he approached to
her manager Julie and offered the program to Moonlight at discount price. Julie denied to use
and buy the program because she believes that this program is dangerous and can create
problems for the company and it would make decisions by not considering human oversight.
Later, Nirmal decided to become a consultant on his own. He released his program on
different social media sites and started providing help to the users for using the program and
its features. He published the program under the name Know-IT. He started consulting as
Khan Jones. He became busy as he used to work during the day for Moonlight and as
consultant on social media in evening. When Julie found that Nirmal is Khan Jones then she
immediately fired Nirmal from the company. The manager of Julie, Harold Simpson
supported her decision with no review of case. Harold receives a mail from the owner Mary
Smithers about Khan Jones and ordered Harold to find Khan Jones hire him to bring his
expertise to the company.
Hence, the ethical dilemma in the case is for Julie and Harold Simpson as they knew that
Nirmal is Khan Jones and Julie fired Nirmal when she found that Nirmal has published the
program under the name Khan Jones. The situation was difficult for Julie and Harold because
it was the order of the owner to find and offer position to Khan Jones (Allen, 2018).
3

Four-step Ethical Analysis and Decision Making Process
Step I. Understand the Situation
1A: List and number the relevant facts
1. Nirmal developed an artificial intelligence program.
2. He tested his program on company’s systems.
3. He offered his program to Julie.
4. She denied to buy the program.
5. Nirmal decided to open his own company of consultation
6. He published program under the name Kahn Jones
7. He used to work during day in Moonlight and in evening as consultant
8. Julie fired Nirmal when she gets to know that Nirmal is Khan Jones
9. Harold Simpson supported her decision without reviewing the case.
1B: Ethical issue and resulting harm
1. Testing program on company’s system by Nirmal without any permission was
ethically wrong.
2. Using bank account details of the employees for testing by Nirmal was ethically
wrong.
3. Julie has not discussed to top management about program developed by Nirmal and
denied to use or buy program which affected Nirmal.
4. She fired Nirmal when she gets to know that Nirmal is Khan Jones which affected
Nirmal and the company as the company lost a bright data scientist.
5. Harold supported Julie’s decision without case’s review which further created problem
for Harold (NASW-MA. , 2017).
4

6. They both have not informed owner of company about this case and their decision of
firing Nirmal.
1C: List the stakeholders involved
1. Nirmal
2. Julie
3. Harold Simpson
4. Mary Smithers
5. Employees of the company
Step II. Isolate the Major Ethical Dilemma
Now that the owner of Moonlight ordered Harold to find and offer Khan Jones a position in
the company, it is difficult for Harold to do so as he has the information about who Khan
Jones is as he was fired by Julie. No such information was provided by Julie and Harold to
the owner about Nirmal and his program and also about firing him from company which was
ethically wrong (Houser et al., 2006).
Firing Nirmal from the company without discussing with owner or top management was
wrong because he was not working as consultant on social media for the program during
office hours. She also has not discussed about Nirmal’s program to company’s top
management. Although, Nirmal used bank details of the employees and also tested the
program upon the company’s systems which was wrong and he should be warned by Julie for
such actions. Julie should have discussed and informed the owner about Nirmal’s program
and about firing him from the company.
As now, the owner of the company do not know about Nirmal and his program hence, Harold
and Julie should inform the owner that they know who Khan Jones is and that they fired him
5

from the company. They should also inform owner that he tested the program on the
company’s system without any permission and other details.
Step III. Ethical Analysis
Consequentialism
Firstly, Nirmal should have taken the permission to test program on company’s system and
using the details of employees’ bank account to be clear on his side. This might have
increased the concern of Julie towards his program.
Julie should have informed about the program developed by Nirmal with top management to
understand the positive and negative aspects and the perception of people about the program.
Julie should have consulted with top management about Nirmal working as consultant on
social media and about firing him from company to make a better decision for the company
(Scheffler, 1988).
Julie and Harold should have informed the owner about every detail related to Nirmal, his
project and firing him from company as this would have not resulted in ethical dilemma for
Harold and Julie. (Ethics Unwrapped, 2018)
Rights and Duties
1. Firstly, it was the duty of Nirmal to take the permission from the manager for testing
the program upon the company’s system. He also used the details about the bank
details of the employees which was wrong.
2. Secondly, Julie fired Nirmal without discussing the matter with the other people of the
company and the owner. She has not even discussed with the other about the program
that is developed by Nirmal and denied to buy or use the program for the company.
3. Julie should have discussed about firing him from the company with the top
management (Wariboko, 2013)
6

4. Harold supported the decision of Julie of firing Nirmal without any review of the case
but it was his duty to review the case.
5. Julie and Harold have not provided the information to Mary about the Nirmal’s
program and about firing him and also that they know Nirmal is Khan Jones but it’s
their duty to inform owner about all these things.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
First of all it was not wrong that Nirmal was developing the program but the wrong part is –
he tested the program upon company’s system and used the details of employees’ bank
account.
In context to denying to buy or use the program, Julie has not even discussed about the
program to owner or any other member of top management (Paton, 1971).
Firing Nirmal was wrong as he was not doing the consultation work during the office hours.
Julie and Harold should have told the owner about the Nirmal’s case and Harold should have
reviewed the case by his own (GKTODAY, 2018).
 If Julie and Harold will inform to owner about the actions of Nirmal then Julie and
 Harold along with Nirmal will be treated as disrespect.
 If Julie and Harold will not inform to owner then they only will be treated with
disrespect.
 Informing the owner about the case is preferable.
 Nirmal will be treated unlike other if they inform owner about the Nirmal’s case.
 Julie and Harold will be treated unlike others if they will not inform owner about all
the things.
 Informing owner about the whole case is preferable
 There are benefits if Julie and Harold tell everything to owner as Julie can justify her
decisions.
7

 Not informing owner will result in disrespecting the owner and his orders and there
are no benefits of it.
 Providing information to owner is preferable as it will clear out everything to the
owner and she can think about and can make decision whether should hire or not hire
Nirmal in the company again as per the benefits of the company.
Step III Discussion
As it is analysed that not informing the owner of the company about Nirmal’s case resulted in
Ethical dilemma for Harold and Julie which affected the company on the whole. It is the duty
of Chief executive to investigate the case by his own to understand the decision of Julie of
firing him. Not considering the program developed by Nirmal and not discussing it with the
members of the company and the owner is wrong as this is important for the company to
retain brilliant employees in the organization ethically. But it is important to consider ethics
of the company and the duties that should be performed.
Step IV. Making a decision
Make a defensible ethical decision
Julie and Harold should tell the owner about who Khan Jones is and the related information.
Julie should justify her decision of firing and should also provide with the details that why
she did so and what actions of Nirmal made her do so. She should justify that she denied to
buy or use the program as it was a dangerous program.
List the steps needed to implement your defensible ethical decision
 Julie and Harold should coordinate and decide to meet as per the convenience of the
owner.
8

 In the meeting they should provide her with all the details related to Nirmal, his
program and Khan Jones.
 They should present all the reasons for the decision about firing Nirmal from the
company.
References
Allen, K., 2018. What Is an Ethical Dilemma? [Online] Available at:
http://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/What_Is_an_Ethical_Dilemma
%3F/ [Accessed 05 May 2018].
Ethics Unwrapped, 2018. Consequentialism. [Online] Available at:
http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism.
GKTODAY, 2018. Kant’s Categorical Imperative. [Online] Available at:
https://www.gktoday.in/academy/article/kants-categorical-imperative/ [Accessed 05 May
2018].
Houser, R., Wilczenski, F.L. & Ham, M., 2006. Culturally Relevant Ethical Decision-
Making in Counseling. Sage.
NASW-MA. , 2017. Resolving Et5hical Dilemmas. [Online] Available at:
http://www.naswma.org/?114 [Accessed 05 May 2018].
Paton, H.J., 1971. The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Scheffler, S., 1988. Consequentialism and Its Critics. Oxford University Press.
Wariboko, N., 2013. Methods of Ethical Analysis: Between Theology, History, and
Literature. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
9