He is attentive at school, does his homework, participates in class, is cooperative and cheerful, but he doesn’t have many friends. Jake may not have an active social life which makes him unhappy, but he is practicing good deontology.
On the other hand, Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its outcome or utility in providing happiness or pleasure (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Utilitarianism). In Utilitarianism, if it benefits the majority, then it is the right choice. For advocates of Utilitarianism, the end justifies the means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism). For this example, we will use Sheila, a classmate of Jake. Sheila is very pretty but does not perform as well as Jake academically. However, she has a lot of friends since she joins a lot of extra-curricular activities. Sheila allows most of her male friends to do things for her like homework and projects, which is mutually beneficial for both – with this, Sheila can be marked a bad deontologist but a good utilitarian.
Now, applied to the office scenario, the basic premise should be that employees are expected to do their job in the workplace. A business enterprise will not succeed if personal agenda will take precedence over an employee’s duties and responsibilities. Personal matters can be done during breaks but not during business hours. Anything outside of this premise should be considered a breach of company policies and violator/s will have to be dealt with accordingly.
The VP suggesting the installation of spyware and dislikes wasted productivity adheres to Deontological Ethics. Conversely, the VP who values privacy over productivity is a follower of Utilitarian Ethics. Although the respect for privacy is given more weight and is applicable to the majority, it does not necessarily mean that this choice is correct.