Creating the Perfect Boss Proposal – Cover Letter

[Your Name]

Ye Old Paper Mill

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

            My name is [Your Name] and I am an employee at Ye Old Paper Mill. The CEO has tasked me with weighing consequentialist ethical theories and choosing which one would be best for potential managers. For context, this proposal exists on the back of recent organizational chart changes in management that have coincided with low profits and employment satisfaction metrics. As a scholar and experienced management professional, I am qualified to craft this proposal. Please reach me via phone at 123-456-7890 or email at

 

Respectfully,

 

[Your Name]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creating the Perfect Boss Proposal – Title Page

 

Your Name

___ University

COURSE#: Course Title

Professor’s Name

Assignment Due Date

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creating the Perfect Boss Proposal – Executive Summary

 

            In sum, this proposal was crafted at the request of the CEO to choose which consequentialist theory would be most effective for potential managers to adopt. In weighing the advantages and disadvantages of consequentialism’s two main theories, as well as differentiating the two based on their features’ applications to the workplace, ethics, and happiness, this proposal recommends implementing a utilitarian consequentialist view, as it bests supports the company’s goals of profits and satisfied clients.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creating the Perfect Boss Proposal – Body and Procedures

I am initiating this proposal in response to the CEO of the company, Year Old Paper Mill, who requested the team weigh consequentialist ethical theories and select which one would be best for potential managers within that lens. In putting forward this proposal, I will keep in mind the core tenets of consequentialism as a leadership theory, differences that exist within conceptions of the term, the effect of happiness and pleasure on the theories as those metrics relate to employee satisfaction, and the overall pros and cons of the views while keeping in mind that not everyone will necessarily subscribe to their managers’ ethics.

According to the University of Washington Philosophy Department, a purely consequentialist theory is “a general normative theory that bases the moral evaluation of acts, rules, institutions, etc. solely on the goodness of their consequences, where the standard of goodness employed is a standard of non-moral goodness” (University of Washington, 2017). In laymen’s terms, this means that within the lens of consequentialism, an act would be viewed as good if it produced consequences that were good, whereas an act would be viewed as bad if it produced consequences that were bad. For example, a consequentialist manager might reward an employee who stole paper to fill up the printer so that important client documents could be printed, even though the employee was a thief, because the consequences of the employee’s action, satisfying clients, was viewed as good. It is in this sense that key features of consequentialist theories include morality, ethics, actions, consequences, lack of attention to motive or intent, and an admittedly subjective standard of goodness.

According to scholars at the University of Texas, of the two main types of consequentialism, utilitarianism evaluates consequences in aggregate, judging an action as good if its consequences provide the “greatest good for the greatest number” of people. The second theory is that of hedonism, which evaluates consequences on more of an individual level, framing actions as good if there are consequences either increase pleasure or decrease pain (McCombs School of Business – The University of Texas at Austin, 2018). Therefore, the main differences between these theories are the scope of the consequences, whether on an individual or group level, the conception of a good action, whether a specific sentiment or an intangible evaluation, and the acceptance or not of a lack of a good consequence as good, such as in the case of hedonism.

Happiness and pleasure are critical to both of these theories of consequentialism because they drive if inaction can be considered good or not within those lenses (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). For instance, a manager who subscribes to a utilitarian managerial style may enact policy that has severe negative impacts to a few employees, such as laying off the bottom 5% of workers. Within the bounds of this theory, that action can be considered good even though it had negative consequences for a few workers, because overall, it saved the jobs of the majority of workers and thus provided the greatest good for the greatest number of people, maintaining their happiness. However, that action may decrease employee satisfaction by scaring the remaining employees that their jobs are at risk if they fall beneath a certain threshold. On the other hand, happiness also plays into hedonistic managerial styles because an action can be viewed as good even if it only avoids pain, which doesn’t necessarily increase happiness, stagnating employee satisfaction.

If the majority of employees followed a utilitarian theory, employees would be likely to sacrifice personal freedoms for the greater good of the company. This would help foster a positive team culture since everyone would recognize their part in the greater whole. However, disadvantages of the utilitarian theory in the workplace could manifest in a lack of creativity and independence on the part of individual workers who may feel like they are being prevented from exercising their unique viewpoints. With respect to the hedonistic theory, an advantage would be a wider definition of a good action, whether that's applied to company policy or specific managerial actions. Because employees would understand a good action as one that just needs to avoid pain, the company might financially benefit from actions such as keeping salaries the same year over year, which could avoid pain without increasing expenses. However, a downside of this theory would be that employees could lose sight of objective metrics that are key to performance and clients, in favor of subjective conceptions of happiness end pain.

This proposal affirms that it would be possible for a manager who follows a different ethical perspective to effectively manage subordinates who follow a particular consequentialist theory. For instance, if a manager who doesn't subscribe to hedonism manages a team of employees who do, consistent and honest communication will be the most important part of an effective relationship in this case. The manager will have to work behind the scenes, as well as explicitly, to massage definitions of what qualifies as a good action in order to meet in a middle ground that satisfies both parties’ ethics, as well as maintaining professionalism.

This proposal asserts that a utilitarian consequentialist view for management would be the best for the company. However, it is important to note that this assertion is dependent upon the assumption that the company values its profits and client relationships as two of its most important performance indicators. From this perspective, profits will be safeguarded under a utilitarian view because actions such as maintaining a lean employee structure will be well justified as achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of shareholders or clients, in this case.

Cover letter

Provides a brief overview of your proposal, your company, and your qualifications.

Title page

Includes your name, the name of the company, the name of the person or company the proposal is being submitted to, the data of submission, and title.

Executive summary

Provide key pieces of information in order to state your case or business argument. It will be read by key decision-makers, so be clear, concise, and convincing. 

Body/procedures section

1. Introduction:
   1. why I’m sending this proposal
   2. overview of issue at company
   3. explain task from CEO
2. What are key features of consequentialist theories?
   1. University of Washington Philosophy Department source
   2. morality, ethics, actions, consequences, lack of attention to motive or intent, and subjective standard of goodness.
3. What are the differences between the consequentialist theories?
   1. University of Texas
   2. utilitarianism,
   3. hedonism,
   4. main differences between these theories are the scope of the consequences, whether on an individual or group level, the conception of a good action, whether a specific sentiment or an intangible evaluation, and the acceptance or not of a lack of a good consequence as good, such as in the case of hedonism.
4. How does happiness and pleasure factor in to these theories? Remember employee satisfaction is at an all-time low.
   1. Sinnott-Armstrong source
   2. Example of laying off the bottom 5% of workers
   3. Happiness maintained or scared remaining employees?
5. What are the pros and cons of each view for the company if the majority of its employees would follow one of the particular theories?
   1. If the majority of employees followed a utilitarian theory, the advantages would be that employees would be likely to sacrifice personal freedoms for the greater good of the company.
   2. disadvantages of the utilitarian theory: lack of creativity and independence
   3. hedonistic theory advantages: financially benefit
   4. downside: lose sight of objective metrics that are key to performance and clients
6. Would it be possible for a manager, who follows a different ethical perspective, to effectively manage subordinates who follow a particular consequentialist theory?
   1. it would be possible
   2. communication key
   3. broad definitions key
7. Conclusion: Select and defend which consequentialist theory for management would be best for the company.
   1. This proposal asserts that a utilitarian consequentialist view for management would be the best for the company.
   2. Assumes key values of profits and client relationships

Bibliography of 3 scholarly and recent sources