Management Consulting/ Business Ethics

Advertisement

Expert: Leo Lingham - 7/15/2013

Question CASE -1

(20 Marks)

Joan, an employee of Great American Market, was warned about her excessive absenteeism several times, both verbally and in writing. The written warning included notice that "further violations will result in disciplinary actions," including suspension or discharge. A short time after the written warning was issued, Joan called work to say she was not going to be in because her babysitter had called in sick and she had to stay home and care for her young child. Joan's supervisor, Sylvia, told her that she had already exceeded the allowed number of absences and warned that if she did not report to work, she could be suspended. When Joan did not report for her shift, Sylvia suspended her for fifteen days. In a subsequent hearing, Joan argued that it was not her fault that the babysitter had canceled, and protested that she had no other choice but to stay home. Sylvia pointed out that Joan had not made a good faith effort to find an alternate babysitter, nor had she tried to swap shifts with a co-worker. Furthermore, Sylvia said that the lack of a babysitter was not a justifiable excuse for being absent. Questions: 1. Was the suspension fair? 2. Did Joan act responsibly? 3. Should she be fired? CASE-2 (20 Marks) You own a cement company, and deal with most the local contractors for cement, sand, etc. You have a reputation of high quality products, and for good customer service with your customers. Your foreman has just run the standard quality control tests you have performed regularly on your products. When the test results are ready, you discover that the new batch of product is 9% less durable than your usual material. It is still well above all industry standards and meets all building codes and requirements for the purposes for which it is intended, but it is, nevertheless, not up to your usual standards. Throwing it away would cost your company many thousands of dollars. You decide to sell the cement anyway. Questions: 1) Should you tell your customers? 2) Should you discount the price? 3) Should you tell your employees, so they will be knowledgeable with the customers? 4) Would you use this cement on foundations for your own house? CASE-3 (20 Marks) Fred, a 17-year employee with Sam's Sauna, was fired for poor job performance and poor attendance, after accruing five disciplinary penalties within a 12-month period under the company's progressive disciplinary policy. A week later, Fred told his former supervisor that he had a substance abuse problem. Although there was no employee assistance program in place and the company had not been aware of Fred's condition, their personnel director assisted Fred in obtaining treatment by allowing him to continue receiving insurance benefits and approved his unemployment insurance claim. Fred subsequently requested reinstatement, maintaining that he had been rehabilitated since his discharge and was fully capable of being a productive employee. He pointed to a letter written by his treatment counselor, which said that his prognosis for leading a "clean, sober lifestyle" was a big incentive for him. Fred pleaded for another chance, arguing that his past problems resulted from drug addiction and that Sam's Saunas should have recognized and provided treatment for the problem. Sam's Saunas countered that Fred should have notified his supervisor of his drug problem, and that everything possible had been done to help him receive treatment. Moreover, the company stressed that the employee had been fired for poor performance and absenteeism. Use of the progressive discipline policy had been necessary because the employee had committed a string of offenses over the course of a year, including careless workmanship, distracting others, wasting time, and disregarding safety rules. Questions: 1) Should Fred be reinstated? 2) Was the company fair to Fred in helping him receive treatment? 3) Did the personnel director behave ethically toward Fred? 4) Did he act ethically for his company? 5) Would it be fair to other employees to reinstate Fred? CASE-4 (20 Marks) In January of last year, the S.S. Vulgass, an oil tanker of the Big Dirty Oil Company ran around in the area just

north of Vancouver, spilling millions of gallons of crude into the waters and onto the beaches of British Columbia and southern Alaska. The damage to the beaches and wildlife and consequently to the tourist industry, the ecology and the quality of life of the local residents is incalculable, but in any case will require many millions of dollars for even the most minimal clean-up. The ship struck a small atoll, well-marked on the navigational maps, but it was a dark night and the boat was well off course. On further investigation, it was discovered that the Captain of the Vulgass, Mr. Slosh, had been drinking heavily. Leaving the navigation of the ship to his first mate, Mr. Mudd, he retired to his cabin, to "sleep it off." Mr. Mudd had never taken charge of the ship before, and it is now clear that he misread the maps, misjudged the waters, maintained a speed that was inappropriate and the accident occurred. Subsequent inquiries showed that Captain Slosh had been arrested on two drunk driving convictions within months of the accident. The Vulgass itself, a double-hulled tanker, was long due for renovation and, it was suggested, would not have cracked up if the hull had been trebly reinforced, as some current tankers were. R. U. Rich, the Chief Executive Officer of Big Dirty Oil declared the accident a "tragedy" and offered two million dollars to aid in the clean up. The Premier of British Columbia was outraged. Environmental groups began a consumer campaign against Big Dirty Oil, urging customers to cut up and send in their Big Dirty Oil credit cards in protest. In a meeting to the shareholders just last month, CEO Rich proudly announced the largest quarterly profit in the history of the Big Dirty Oil Company. He dismissed the protests as "the outpourings of Greenies and other fanatics" and assured the shareholders that his obligation was, and would always be, to assure the highest profits possible in the turmoil of today's market. Questions: 1) The question is, who is responsible? 2) Against whom should criminal charges be leveled? 3) What should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself? 4) What about the CEO? Get the answer below Sponsored Links Get word meanings fastgoogle.co.inMinimise scrolling through results with instant answers from Google. Performance Managementwww.hrtools.com.auStaff performance management 360 and Climate Surveys 100% Free! Ssangyong Rexton-Mahindrawww.ssangyongrexton.inStylish & Indulgent SUV by Mahindra Know More Now!

Answer

1.Was the suspension fair?

Yes, I think the suspension was fair. Over a period of time, Joan was warned several times abouther excessive absenteeism, both verbally and in writing, but she did almost nothing about resolvingthe problem. Joan hasn't shown an inclination to look for alternate solutions and she just expectsGreat American Market to put up with her excessive absenteeism, and the loss in productivity thatcomes with it. It appears to me that only a suspension would drive the point hard in this case.

2.Did Joan act responsibly?

No, I don't think Joan acted responsibly. In spite of receiving verbal and written warningsnumerous times, Joan just did not put in efforts to make a backup plan for her baby's care. Joanacted irresponsibly by not finding an alternate babysitter or daycare center. Added to this, Joan didnot even try to swap shifts with a co-worker.

3.Should she be fired?

Not yet. I think Joan should be given another opportunity after her 15-day suspension period. Joancan use this time to make up a good plan for her baby's care, probably by making an arrangementwith an alternate babysitter who can step-in when the regular babysitter is unavailable, or byconsidering a regular, nearby day care center.

Questions:1) Should you tell your customers? There is no need to tell the customers , as the company is meeting all the standards. ------------------------------------2) Should you discount the price? There is no need to discount the price at this stage. ----------------------------------3) Should you tell your employees, so they will be knowledgeable with the customers? -inform the supervisor about the specific problem. -call the team meeting and make an action plan to improve the quality to its original --------------------------------4) Would you use this cement on foundations for your own house? yes, I would use it as it meets the standard. ####################

standard.

1) Should Fred be reinstated?

FRED SHOULD NOT BE REINSTATED, BECAUSE HE had been fired for poor performance and absenteeism ----------------------------------------Should Fred be reinstated? Yes, Fred should be given another chance. Everybody needs to be given a second chance, and Ithink Fred should should be given one, especially since he had gone through a rehabilitationproblem and his treatment counselor's letter said that Fred's prognosis indicated a clean andsober lifestyle. Having said that, if Fred repeats his poor attendance and job performanceissues, he should be permanently relieved of his duties without any scope for reinstation in thefuture.

2) Was the company fair to Fred in helping him receive treatment?

THE COMPANY WAS RIGHT IN HELPING FRED TO RECEIVE THE TREATMENT. --------------------------------------Was the company fair to Fred in helping him receive treatment? Yes, I think the company was more than fair to Fred in helping him receive treatment.

3) Did the personnel director behave ethically toward Fred?

YES, HE ACTED ETHICALLY TOWARD FRED. ---------------------------------In fact, I thought the personnel director went out of his way and helped Fred receive treatment.The personnel director behaved very ethically toward Fred by approving his unemploymentinsurance claim, which allowed him to continue receiving insurance benefits even after gettingformally discharged from his duties.

4) Did he act ethically for his company?

YES, he acted ethically for his company ---------------------------------------------While I think that the personnel director behaved very ethically toward Fred, I still think heacted unethically toward the company by approving Fred's unemployment insurance claim. Thepersonnel director's act was unethical toward the company, especially when you consider thefact that the company did not have any employee assistance program in place and that Fred didnot inform the company about his drug problem earlier.

5) Would it be fair to other employees to reinstate Fred?

It would not be fair to other employees to reinstate FRED.

I don't think Fred should be given any special consideration, or be treated by Sam's Saunas in adifferent way when compared to the way it treats other employees. Sam's Saunas should treatFred in the same way as it would treat any other employee who has supposedly recovered from

Answer 1) The question is, who is responsible?

According to the Dictionary.com, responsible is defined as being answerable or accountable, asfor something within one's power, control, or management.In the above case, we are presented with a few numbers of characters. The persons responsibleare the captain, which were Mr. Slosh, the first mate Mr. Mudd and the Company because allcontributed to the situation so therefore all characters are responsible for the tragedy. First andforemost the company which is controlled by Mr. Rich should be held responsible for allowingMr. Slosh to be the captain knowing that he got arrested on two drunken driving convictionswithin two months of the accident. It should have been the companys right and duty to fire himor replace him with another captain. The company should h ave also ensured that his first mateMr. Mudd knew how to control the ship and read the map for the safety of them onboard. Mr.Slosh is also responsible in some way; he should have not allowed the captain Mr. Mudd to drink while on sail for their own safety and the safety of the ship. Mr. Mudd should not have beendrinking because he knew what would have happened but instead he did and caused a tragedy byleaving the navigation ship to his first mate Mr. Mudd who had no knowledge on how to operatethe ship. Also Mr. Slosh should have known that its a law not to drink and drive and he brokethat law so therefore he should be held responsible for the outcome as well. The CEO shouldn'tallow any form of alcoholic beverages on the ship, reason being, to ensure the safety of thecaptain and his crew. According to the Virtue theory, it states that whether an intention is right or wrong, it focuses on whether or not the person is expressing good character. In this case none of the characters were portraying good virtues. Mr. Slosh was being nave to be drinking anddriving and Mr Rich was being carefree, meaning he did not ensure that the captains were up to par, all he was concerned about was his money and the profit at the end of the season

2) Against whom should criminal charges be leveled?

Criminal charges should be leveled against the first mate Mr.Mudd and Mr. Slosh because their responsibilities were somewhat equal.Mr.Mudd knew that Mr. Slosh was drinking and heMr.Mudd knew that he could not take over from Mr. Slosh so therefore he should have ensuredthat Mr. Slosh didnt drink any alcohol., so therefore he should be the one to get most of thecharges as well as Mr. Slosh because he was drinking and driving and because of him drinking,he had to give his first mate to take over and he did not have clue what to do. Due to all this, itcaused the company millions of dollars for even the most minimal clean up. If Mr. Slosh was notdrinking, his first mate Mr. Mudd would not have to take over causing all the damages. Both parties were acting unethical and so there unethical behavior would lead to consequences. The justice theory states that when situations arises, we need to compare and weigh the conflictingclaim and strike a balance and in this case both parties did not carry out their duty and so chargesshould be leveled against them both.

3) What should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself?

To punish the corporation itself, their license should be taken away (suspended). Thecompany should also be fined for the damages that were done, The government shouldensure that they clean up the place, work with other regulatory bodies to execute a clean upuntil they are finished they cannot conduct any business. Also to punish the corporation touse the license, they will have to clean up everywhere before they can operate any more business. Also to punish the corporation, the captain Mr.Slosh should be arrested andcharged. Until their ships are up to scratch they should not conduct any business because itwas stated in the case that the double-hulled tanker, was long due for renovation and, it wassuggested, would not have cracked up if the hull had been trebly reinforced, as some currenttankers were.

4) What about the CEO?

The CEO was being very unethical in not ensuring that the captains were able to sail beforeassigning them to the duty. He was also catering for the greater good of the company andensuring the majority is happy. According to the Justice theory, it justifies the actions taken by Mr. Rich, take into consideration his speech. It was aimed at producing higher amounts of profit with regards to the shareholder. According to him, his shareholders and the increase of their profits are his priority. Also he was able to do his part in helping with the clean-up byselling out 2million. These actions justify his cause under this view.The action of Mr. Rich however one may view it, depends solely on his intentions on doingthat action. One must note that Mr. Richs statement at the end of the case studies. There itmade mention of his obligation to the shareholders, which was to gain much profit as possible. From this statement alone, we may be able to conclude that Mr. Richs intention of donating the 2million to clean up was to gain better views from the people. Because of thathe may retain the status of his company, despite the oil-spill scenario.