Introduction

The case of ‘The Nice Guy’ is about Paul Kennedy who is portrayed as a leader and a
trustworthy person in the company of Daner Associates for ten years. As being loyal to Daner
Associates and having a proper notion of each dimension of the organisation’s framework,
Paul gives a nice picture of the one who strive for excellence at work a aims for the post of
CEO of the ‘new media company’. But it happens to be that Paul is not tough enough for the
job to become CEO of Daner Associates.

The nice guy who is Paul Kennedy is depicted as a self confident person who does
excellent job with integrity in the company. The problem is that Paul did not get the job of
CEO because he does not fit the post. Loyalty is in fact not appropriate in a business
relationship since it demands something in return (Corvino 2002); which can explain Paul’s
deception. Some aspects of ethical decision making is going to be discussed to analyse why
such a person like Paul is not the right man and what should therefore be done ethically and
morally for him to land the top job.

Aspired for the post of CEO, Paul wants to do things in a right way and be self-
organised at work as well as in everyday life. He demonstrates the concept of teleopathy as
suggests Goodpaster (2004), not being frank with himself and having a fixation on activities
by intertwining home and business. As proving his loyalty to Daner Associates for several
years, he shows himself as a man of principle too but at the same time conducts morality and
right behaviour as a self assurance. Paul’s character reveals that he is not someone who is
confident in reasoning as he is too emotionally implicated. This can point out the reason why
he is not the authentic leader and CEO of the company compared with George the number
two short listed who is perceived who wants only results.

In order to perceive the Paul’s issue in a structured and systematic way, decision
making models is to be adopted such as Mary Guy’s model and Michael Rion’s model
(Goodpaster 2004). Mary Guy’s decision making model takes into consideration the values
and comes up with some rules which integrate those values like caring, integrity and respect
for others. If this is to be applied in Paul’s situation, the question of why he did not get the
job arises and what are the limits of such a situation would likely be that he does not fit and
has not toughness for the job.

1|Page
 Mary Guy suggests that one needs to relate the values to the issue so that the ethical
implications of an action become clearer. The values which for instance are of more concern
are likely to be caring value; Paul has a nurturing attitude towards others at home and in
business. One question in the ten-step decision making model of Guy is to specify all
dimensions of the problem. Paul has seen himself to be the CEO of Daner Associates but the
problem is likely to be that he does a fixation on everything and wants perfection which is
reinforced by a nurturing attitude. One of the dimensions of Paul’s problem is that he is not
yet ready to fit the right image of Daner Associates as like whether he will be able to take
appropriate decisions in business. Furthermore, is the right portrait of CEO of the company
symbolises the ethical person in whatever decision making.

Perhaps Paul would fit the shoes of a CEO in another company a while ago. So what
can be interpreted is what Daner Associates wants to inspire and aspire in the business
frameworks and reflects also of what is legal can be ethical in another perspective
(Drumwright 2004) By listing possible solutions of the each dimension, as suggests in the
other step of Guy’s model, one can come up with a solution like Paul should be more strong
morally and be ‘genuinely’ self-confident in his decisions. In another dimension, the nice guy
should be able to demonstrate the right image of ‘the new media company’. Vickers (2005)
argues that what really matters for a manager is profit and being competitive; is Paul still be
‘the nice guy’ or become a jerk like George if such an argument is considered.

Michael Rion suggests a six questions decision making model where only specific
steps are to be applied in Paul’s issue. This is listed below and analysed in Paul’s context:

1. Why is this bothering me?

Paul’s case is a real issue because he does not have the appropriate image for being a
CEO though he has all the qualities and experience. Paul is not able to give the
‘hypocritical’ attitude to please others and that’s why he is still perplexed about Larry’s
decision. As Rossouw and Vuuren (2003) argue, an organisation cannot develop moral
conditions as people do and Paul needs to keep this in mind.

2. Am I being true to myself?

Paul has come to a conclusion that he has not that jerk attitude to be the CEO but still
question himself is he ready and able to become one and would it be right to do so. Is
Paul really obliged to do so and it is simply a question of deontology. As being ‘the nice
2|Page
 guy’ of the company, he is ready to enhance better response for business irregularities
(Lynn 1998, McClearn 2004) as a question of integrity or maybe a sense of guilt for not
reporting.

3. What is the ethical decision?

Paul is someone afraid of harming others maybe through his own decision making. It is
far from a discrimination issue for the fact of not becoming CEO. The fact is that he is
honest and is the portrait of the ethical man which in turn weakens his personality. The
real issue would be a guy like Paul worrying about implementing an ethical culture in the
workplace which finally creates drawbacks for shareholders and stakeholders as Beyer
and Nino (1999) suggested. He is not the one who is ready to get dirty hands and perceive
that good decisions bears immoral side effects.

Recommendations

Paul Kennedy is the one who has good experience and expertise for being a CEO. It is
advised for such a personality to reflect more of a tough attitude and be able to show in every
fact of the company that he has ability to take decisions with a sound judgment as well as
demonstrate the ability of empowering people to avoid over commitments and objectives in
business can thus be blurred (Grace and Cohen 2005). Decisions can be unethically
understood but can be seen as moral in a business environment if only it is supported with a
conviction and assurance.

By saying it would be cautious and right, decision making can not only be taken with
feelings and emotions of doing right things every time. Paul needs to demonstrate that he has
indeed the qualities of a good leader which are still to be developed. He is engaged in a kind
of personality conflicts in which he is not yet aware; his colleagues lay tasks on him as he is
the nice guy of Daner Associates whereas he should show that he can delegate tasks to others.
It may be possible that Paul communicate with each others and Larry to know what exactly is
expected from him as an employee and a stakeholder (Phillips 2004). But a person like Paul
to be a CEO can help in the recognition of moral ethics and lead companies to be more
sensible to moral obligations (Mendonca 2001).

3|Page
References

Beyer, J. M. & Nino, D. 1999, ‘Ethics and cultures in international Business’, Journal of
Management Inquiry, vol.8, no.3, pp.287

Corvino, J. 2002, ‘Loyalty in Business?’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.41 no 1, pp 179-185

Drumwright, M.E. & Murphy, P.E 2004 ‘How advertising practitioners view ethics: Moral
muteness, moral myopia, and moral imagination’ Journal of Advertising, vol. 33, no
2, pp.7-24

Goodpaster, K. E. 2004. Ethics or excellence? Conscience as a check on the unbalanced

pursuit of organizational goals. Ivey Business Journal Mar/Apr: 1-8.

Grace, D., and S. Cohen. 2005. Business ethics: Problems and cases. 3rd ed. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press. (Chapter 1 and Appendix 1)

Lynn, M. 1998, ‘The whistle blowers’ dilemma’, Management Today, Oct pp. 54-59

McClearn, M. 2004, ‘A snitch in time’, Canadian Business, Vol. 77, No. 1; pp.61-64

Mendonca, M. 2001, ‘Preparing for ethical leadership in organisations’. Canadian Journal of

administrative Sciences, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 226-276.

Phillips, R. 2004. Ethics and a manager’s obligations under stakeholder theory. Ivey Business
Journal. 1-4.

Roussouw, G.J & van Vuuren, L.J. 2003, ‘Modes of managing morality: a descriptive model
of strategies for managing ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 46, no.4. pp. 389-
402.

Vickers, M.R 2005 ‘Business Ethics and the HR Role: Past, Present, and Future’, Human
Resource Planning; vol. 28 no. 1 pp.26-32.

4|Page