Management - Ethical Issues - IT Managers - Jeff Relkin - Assessment Answer

Management Assignment

Assignment Task

Read ''10 Ethical Issues Confronting IT Managers'' article by Jeff Relkin

Find a recent real-life case related to ANY one of the 10 issues mentioned.

Ensure you cover the following in your report:

• Describe ethical issue from viewpoints of all of the stakeholders involved
• Explain why this issue should be resolved via ethical avenues rather than the legal ones
• What ethical obligations do all of the stakeholders have towards one another and general population?
• What guidance (if any) can the Australian Computer Society's (ACS) Code of Ethics provide in this case?

Support your arguments with at least 6 references from reputable sources such as books and journal (academic) articles relevant to the subject. Do not use sources that were published before 2010.

Introduction

It managers experience various ethical issues in the course of their operations. Some of the issues that they experience require careful decision making to ensure that the solutions or implementations executed do not affect the profitability of a business or ruin the reputation of the firms. Relkin in the article “10 ethical issues confronting IT managers” analyzed some of the top ethical issues that are a dilemma to many firms. This report outlines a current ethical related case in the IT field by establishing all the issues of the case and the stakeholders affected. It gives the viewpoints of all the stakeholders involved and explains why the case should be solved through ethical avenues as opposed to legal means. The report further outlines the ethical obligations that all the stakeholders have towards one another. Finally, the report summarizes the guidance offered by the Australian Computer Society's (ACS) Code of Ethics in relation to this case.

Ethical Case Study

A current ethical case was published in the MIT Technology Review. The article titled “How Political Candidates Know If You’re Neurotic,” established that the company Cambridge Analytica, gathered voters’ personality information without their consent (Ruici, 2016). The firm alleges that it uses behavioral science insights in assisting politicians to customize their campaign messages. The candidates would then send campaign messages according to the personality types of the respondents. The data company thus classifies voters depending on the basis of demographics and issues. The ethical issue in their data collection is that it introduced the aspect of personality typing which the voters were not aware while answering the questionnaires. The firm gathered the voters’ information by administering online questionnaires in which the respondents were compelled to answer with the promise that they will get to know the relative weight of their personality traits. Over 190 million voters were hoodwinked into answering the questionnaires oblivious of the firm’s intention of categorizing their personality trait. The firm was eve able to generate the personality traits of those that failed to answer the questionnaire through extrapolation. The administrators were able to classify one as neurotic by matching his/her statistical profile with those of others found in the commercial or public domain data points. The issues in the case thus converge on the question: Is the firm’s personality-“harvesting” method ethical? Why, or why not? Should people who endeavor to answer the questionnaire be informed beforehand, that the data collected from those questionnaires will be used to enhance the targeting of political messaging? Although Cambridge Analytica’s Privacy Policy addresses the issue of how the information collected will be used, the company collected more information than the voters knew and used it for a purpose that the voters did not expect (Ruici, 2016). The ethical question thus is, Is this disclosure sufficient? Why, or why not? Other ethical questions thus include, Is the evaluation of personalities by extrapolation ethical? Why, or why not? If you do have apprehensions about this practice, are they embedded in awareness of fairness? The question of autonomy? Privacy rights? Other?

Ethical issues related to Relkin Privacy Concern

The ethical issues presented in the case are related to the issue of privacy outlined by Relkin (Relkin, 2006). It is the culture of many organizations and governments to collect large volumes of data on individuals for various uses. The government uses the data for various reasons including security, tax assessment and collection and for general planning of the country’s affairs. Advancement in technology ensures that the organizations can store large volumes of data with ease. Technology also makes retrieval and sharing of data easier. The ethical issues in this practice are concerned with whether there should be control or limitations on the ability and methods used in the data collection. Should the government and the organizations concerned disclose exclusively the usage of the data collected in relation to the aspect of confidentiality (Relkin, 2006). Are individual privacy rights infringed if the organizations fail to use the data for the disclosed purpose? Such questions arise in the case of Cambridge Analytica because the company collected more information that the respondents knew and did not fully disclose how it intended to use the information. It can be concluded that the company used the personal information for the wrong purpose. Classifying people as either neurotic or not is ethically questionable as it can affect the emotions and psychological status of the individual.

Solutions: Ethical vs. Legal

In order to determine the best method of resolving the issue, it is necessary to consider the positive effects and the negative effects of each of the two methods. Solving the ethical issues through the legal ways might ruin the reputation of the company. It is also expensive and might arise to restrictions should the company lose the case (Gershuny, 2010). To improve ethical decision making skills an IT manager needs to consider several issues. One of the issues is unethical behaviors at the workplace. In this case the manager at the Cambridge Analytica should consider whether the decision by the company to collect personality information concerning the voters. If the manager had failed to offer the required ethical awareness to the IT staff, then serious ethical issues need to be resolved.

To solve the issue properly, it is wise to employ a combination of various approaches developed by philosophers to handle ethical issues. One of the approaches proposed by the philosophers is the Utalitarian method.

The Utilitarian Method

This approach was designed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to assist legislators establish the best principles to apply in ethical issues. The two suggested that ethical actions should offer the most appropriate balance between bad and good (Carroll, 2006). The approach proposes that it is imperative to evaluate all the available options before making a decision concerning a case. The second step after analyzing all the options is to evaluate each of the options independently to assess the benefits and harms of each of them. The last step is to choose the option with the most benefits and the least harms and apply it to solve the ethical issue.

The Rights Approach

The rights approach was first fronted by Immanuel Kant and others with the same perception. These proponents of the method focused on the individual rights (Rinehart-Thompson &Harman, 2006). These philosophers argue that individuals should be allowed to freely choose for themselves the best options that they deem fit. This implies that people should be allowed to take any options that they fill suit their situations as opposed the idea of controlling them. It is a thus a violation of human rights to manipulate and control people at will against their will (Straub & Nance, 2011). If individuals are not allowed to choose their own ways of operation then their dignity is compromised. Under this approach, human beings have the following rights:

• The right to the truth: individual must be told the truth without concealing any significance information
• The right of privacy: individual have a right to maintain their private information confidentiality (Rinehart-Thompson &Harman, 2006).
• The right not to be injured: individuals have the right not to be harmed in any way either emotionally, physically or psychologically
• The right to what is agreed: if an individual enters into an agreement with any other party, then such parties should operate within the terms of their agreement (Kidder, 2007).

Thus when applying this approach it is important to consider the moral rights of every stakeholder involved (Jones, 2007). The company should resolve the case in manner that does not infringe the rights of any party involved. It should further seize from operating in a manner that hurts voters.

The Fairness or Justice Approach

This approach is based on the arguments of Philosopher Aristotle that equals should be treated equally while the unequals unequally. The main point in this argument is whether an action taken for any event is fair or not. Does the action treat every party involved equally without favoritism and discrimination? Favoritism is an action that gives other parties benefits without appropriate justification. Both favoritism and discrimination are unreasonable and erroneous (Gershuny, 2010). The action by the company in this case can be taken to be unfair. To label people as neurotic can be unfair because some of the people do not even answer the questionnaires and are nonetheless characterized as neurotic.

The Common-Good Approach

This approach to ethics is based on the assumption that the society is composed of optimistic individuals whose objective is to promote a good welfare of the society. Such members are inextricably linked to the good of the society and are in pursuit of good values and morals. The main focus in this approach is ensuring that the appropriate social policies, social function, institutions are promoted with the objective of having a morally upright society which benefits everyone (Gershuny, 2010). Cambridge Analytica should aim at promoting the good of the society in all of its operations. The fact that it infringes the rights of the voters means that it does not promote the proper wellbeing of the society. Some of the most common goods in the society as mentioned in this approach include appropriate healthcare, public safety, peaceful world, comfortable individuals and uncontaminated environment.

The Virtue Approach

The virtue approach is based on the assumption that there are certain ideals that drive the process of the development of an individual. The ideals are established after a thoughtful reflection of the kind of people in the society and the kind of life they would like to live in future. Virtues are character traits that allow people to act in a manner aimed at realizing their full potential (Gershuny, 2010). The general virtues proposed by this approach include honesty, courage, sympathy, kindness, fidelity, integrity, impartiality, self-control, and farsightedness.

Ideal Ethical Problem Solving

These five approaches should be used in combination in resolving this issue. Some of the questions that the firm should consider before resolving the case include:

• What benefits and what harms will each approach yield, and which alternative will lead to the best overall significances?
• What ethical rights do the affected stakeholders have, and which is the best method to resolve the issues of concern without infringing their rights?
• Which is the best solution for every party involved, except where there is an ethically justifiable reason not to, and does not show partiality or discrimination?
• Which is the best solution that promotes common good?
• Which is the optimal solution that promotes moral virtues?

Ethical obligations of the Stakeholders

The managers and the voters are the major stakeholders in this case. The company has an obligation of keeping to the agreed terms of their agreement with the voters. The firm thus has exhibit honesty and privacy of information when handling the voters information (Stanton, 2012). In addition its should observe all the rights of an individual as stipulated in the Australian Computer Society's (ACS) code of ethics. These stipulations include promotion of public interest, the right to enjoy a quality life and right to privacy and confidentiality. In addition, the organization should strive to have an ethical leadership in its management. It should always seek to do the right things (Urbaczewski & Jessup, 2012). Ethical leadership requires an integrity strategy. This strategy is based on perceiving ethics as the driving on the operations of a firm. An ethical management full of ethical values will enable the company capitalize on opportunities available without necessarily tampering with the interest or rights of other parties. An integrity strategy offers a common guideline that serves as a unifying function in an organization.

Guidance by the Australian Computer Society's (ACS) Code of Ethics

The ACS gives several guidelines on how such an ethical case should be handled. One of the stipulations of the code is that public interest is supreme over the interest of an organization. In this case, Cambridge Analytica should consider whether its actions promote public interest. In this regard, the firm should avoid acting in a manner that infringes the interests of the public. Though the company tricked the voters into believing that by answering the questionnaires, they will get to know their personality types, the end of the exercise proved otherwise. Their statuses are aggrieved thus denying an opportunity to lead a quality life (Gelzer et al., 2009). The code stipulates that the public be entitled to a quality life. Further, the code requires that every organization operate in honesty and exhibit competence in their operations. This was not the case with Cambridge Analytica. They deceived the public collecting their personal information without informing them (Ferrell &Fraedrich, 2011). Lastly, the company should show professionalism and integrity as stipulated in the code.

Conclusion

This report has outlined various issues in relation to the case study of the company Cambridge Analytica. The case is related to the privacy ethical issue outlined in Relkin in the article “10 ethical issues confronting IT managers”. The report has established that the best way to solve the issue is through the ethical means this is because the legal way is expensive and can ruin the reputation of the company. The ethical way will not be expensive and will not affect the reputation of the organization. The firm should thus address the issue by reaching out to the individuals affected and informing them of the intended measures to resolve the issue. In combining the five approaches to get a solution, the firm should first employ the utilitarian method to select the best option between legal and ethical means of solving the question. The legal way will harm the reputation of the organization and will not thus be the best option. The approach will thus assist in choosing the ethical approach as the suitable one to resolve the issue. After choosing the ethical means of solving the case, the rights approach will assist will help the company in resolving the issue in a manner that does not infringe the rights of other stakeholders and in this case the voters. The company will strive not to infringe their rights to truth, privacy discloser and not to breach the terms of the agreement with the firm. The fairness approach will assist the firm to resolve the issue with impartiality without injuring the conscience of any party.