Read the following case study and redraft my answer.

Add more detailed data and information to the answer of my question below and do in text reference and referencing list.

Do you believe Musk's behaviour so far in his takeover of Twitter has been ethical? Make your case for either yes or no by using one (or more) of the different ethical perspectives. No, Elon Musk did not act ethically when he took over Twitter. According to deontological ethics, which is concerned with moral responsibilities and duties, Musk has not upheld his moral duty as a CEO to handle workers with regard and honour. Without their consent, he forced harsh working circumstances on them, disregarding their rights and general welfare.

According to utilitarian ethics, which emphasizes doing what is best for the largest number of people, Musk's actions have hurt most workers and the company's image rather than advancing what is best. His decision to fire 3700 workers and enforce stringent working conditions has hurt the majority of employees and the business by causing a mass departure of workers and a toxic work environment.

According to the virtue ethics viewpoint, which is concerned with moral perfection and character, Musk's actions have fallen short of those of a good leader. His autocratic management style, disdain for the rights and welfare of his workers, and lack of sensitivity and concern for them are at odds with the virtues of a good leader, such as honesty, justice, and kindness.

According to these ethical viewpoints, Elon Musk's actions in acquiring Twitter have not been moral. His conduct has been detrimental to the majority of the workforce, the company's image, and the duties and characteristics of a moral leader.

Case study

Twitter - The Chief Twit

Twitteris an onlinesocial media and networking platform. People using Twitter can send and respond in 280-character-long messages (initially 140 characters), referred to as "tweets".

Based in San Franciscoby 2019 Twitter reportedly had almost 350 million monthly active users, although it should be noted that the majority of "tweets" are sent by a minority of people (the Pareto effect), and there are claims that up to 20% of the accounts are what are referred to as "fake" accounts.

On October 27, 2022, after a six-month legal case where he initially tried to cancel the purchase agreement, Elon Musk purchased Twitterfor US$44 billion. Almost immediately Musk fired its CEO, Parag Agrawal as well as a number of other senior executives, including the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and General Counsel (GC). Musk then stepped into the position of CEO, dissolving Twitter's Board of Directors.

At this point Musk developed what he referred to as the "war room", a small group of insiders that would assist Musk in his plans for Twitter. The members of the war room were largely investors in the Twitter takeover bid as well as previous associates of Musk, typically with limited experience in social media and the roles they were tasked to undertake. The group was to consider how to overhaul the app and monetize it more effectively, as well as to consider ways to achieve cost savings - largely through reducing the size of Twitter's workforce. Within a week Musk took Twitter private, with shares ceasing trading and the company delisted from the New York Stock Exchange shortly afterwards.

This is when the real fun started! At this stage Musk implemented a very authoritarian approach to people management. In a widely publicised move he laid off 3700 employees from Twitter - a figure which represented about half the organisations workforce. Of note was the total lack of consultation with staff, with most realising they had been dismissed only when they could no longer log into their computers. Further he imposed restrictions on staff work patterns, requiring employees to work only within the office and not at home, and cancelling employee lunch breaks.

However, this then progressed further. Musk directed the remaining staff to extend their working hours in order to meet the deadlines Musk had directed for his intended changes to Twitter, including monetizing the platform more effectively through strategies such as paid verification ("blue ticks"). However, the reality of such strategies was criticised as impractical and open to exploitation. The speed and rapidity of the changes Musk was implementing caused widespread chaos and turmoil within the company as remaining staff tried to both keep up with the changing playing field from Musk's directives, as well as keep the platform running and operation.

By mid-November 2022 Musk sent an email to all staff, and demanded that they commit to "extremely hardcore" work in order to realize Musk's vision of "Twitter 2.0", or to resign from the company. The email further stated that "only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade". The deadline for response was only just over 24 hours. As a consequence, close to 1000 of the remaining staff chose resignation.

There is no question that Musk's behaviours since taking over as CEO of Twitter have harmed the company. Beyond the treatment of staff, as well as the consequent impacts on Twitter's operations from the rapid state of change, Musk's decisions to support "free speech", and reinstate a number of previously banned accounts (including Trump's), resulted in a wave of antisemitic trolling and other forms of hate speech. Ironically, he also suspended anti-right wing accounts and removed Twitter's previous policy of prohibiting Covid-19 misinformation.

These changes impacted on a range of companies who reduced or limited their ad spending on Twitter, which further impacted on the bottom line of the company, and furthered the imperative to monetize the platform. For example, large companies including Pfizer and Audi reduced their ad spend. Likewise the decision to be the advocate for "free speech" impacted on other potential income sources. One of the most critical is Twitter's access to the digital storefronts of Apple and Google. If Twitter is banned from these platforms, access to millions of potential users is closed off, impacting on the company's future bottom line.

Professor of Human Resource Studiesat Cornell University Rebecca Kehoe notes that Musk's actions present a clear indication of how not to treat employees.

"With predictions of a looming recession, we are likely to see more companies facing difficult workforce decisions in the coming months. The recent chain of events at Twitter is a case study for other companies in how not to treat employees in a company's difficult times. It's not surprising to see a mass exodus of employees who have seen their colleagues and leaders abruptly laid off and who have been given an ultimatum where the alternative to leaving requires committing themselves to gruelling working conditions in service of a CEO who has signalled no regard for their wellbeing or worth".

"Building employee commitment to a company's values requires trust, mutual investment, and time. Elon Musk has offered Twitter's employees none of these, and the employee response is clear."

(SOURCE:https://news.cornell.edu/media-relations/tip-sheets/musks-twitter-case-study-how-not-treat-employees)

Indeed Musk's treatment of employees is not new. He has dismissed staff on a whim at multiple previous companies (including Tesla and Space X) and has overseen large scale layoffs at Telsa. His actions at Twitter also may have breached U.S state and federal labour laws, with many staff not being provided their minimum severance payments. Further there is some evidence that the staff that were fired represented a notably disproportionate number of people from diversity groups (i.e., not white, middle-aged, Anglo-Celtic men).

It is clear that Musk's approach to management and leadership is on the surface antithetical to the notion of leading and managing as inspiring and motivating people. His approach seems more akin to viewing staff as merely parts of a machine, tools to achieve ends. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 12-24 months.