Business and Society - Case Study Example

 Bryson Corporation is a conglomerate headed by an ever aggressive CEO. On a Monday morning in the company’s cable assembly plant, the company’s quality supervisor was having a disturbing thought that had been bothering him for the whole weekend. He (Stanton Wong) had received a disturbing directive from the plant’s manager Mr. Harry Jackson. The boss had directed him to not consider defects found in the laminated cables the previous Friday. Harry was famous of running the firm as a dictator always making those near him feel inferior. He used to harass young women in the office and even had an affair with one sales manager. On the contrary, the corporate of the company were always pleased with his progress in the company. Stanton was just completing his second anniversary in the company and his salary was adequate for his family. He had previously decided never to contradict Harry until the warhead cable saga came up. He commanded a great respect from colleagues because he was always loyal so he felt his reputation was at a risk. Warhead cables were used in missiles and to prove its quality, it underwent a series of tests. It was tested using an elevated heat test where it was bent at a ninety degree angle and placed in an oven at approximately 105 degrees for seven hours. If the seal did not delaminate, then the cables passed the test. Then Stanton could prepare a detailed report of the test results. In the previous week, a large order came by with a short time period. On Friday, Stanton tested the batch of cables and two out of the ten tested had a problem. He immediately reported this to Harry who directed him to wait and see if the source inspector could note the problem. Stanton did not like this directive at all as he thought of all innocent civilians out there who would suffer form this unethical behavior. These cables were used in missiles fuses and Stanton was worried sick of a problem arising if these cables were to be used. What if a missile was to fire itself and harm innocent civilians? He thought of anyone in the parent corporation that he could contact but to no avail. Question one: Bryson corporation should act ethically due to the dangers they would be exposing civilians into if they failed to act ethically. Considering the warhead cables are used to manufacture switches used in missiles unethical behavior could cost innocent lives in the case of such missiles firing themselves. Acting ethically helps in enhancing customer satisfaction, preventing loss of lives and enhancing the company’s reputation. Unethical behaviors have different repercussions. One of them is losing reputation (Giacalone, 2013). In the event that such poor quality cables were to be used by the security detail and then something happen for instance uncontrollable missile switches, then they would trace the problem to the Bryson corporations. As a result, they would fail to trust their products again and would seek other companies to transact business with. Secondly, it would result in incurred losses by the company. The company would loose a lot of customers due to their poor quality cables. Some of the customers may also sue them forcing them to undergo huge loses in fines. Thirdly, it can result into loss of lives. Lots of lives would be lost in the event of these missiles firing themselves. Moreover, giving the customer s products you are well aware that is of low quality is unethical too (Klebe, 2011). Question two Stanton Wong is in stage three of moral development (interpersonal accord and conformity) (Garz, 2009). This is because he is very sensitive of the feelings and approval of others. He believes that providing the best quality warhead cables is the best thing to do. He also believes that presenting low quality cables is not good and he is willing to go all the way to prevent this. He tries as much as possible to do the best because he believes there is an advantage in doing so. And true to that, he has gained respect from his colleagues in his past two years in the company. He is always willing to be liked and thought of well by other people. On the other hand, Harry Jackson is in stage two of moral development (self interest). He only cares about himself. He dictates every aspect of what is to be done in the company. He looks down on all his employees’ even harassing the young women in the office. At the end f the day, the company’s executives are happy with his progress and that is what matters. He does not care about the interest of others. That is why he is so determined to proceed with his plan of dispatching the low quality cables to the sergeant. He did not care what would happen afterwards. Question three First, he should have the virtue of courage and honesty to try as much and possible to reach the top executives about this. He should not worry about his job because at the end of the day, other people matters more. This should be guided by the second method of utility (Jecker, 2011). The decision he made now would have adequate repercussions. Would he just keep quiet and risk the lives of innocent civilians? He should also be aware that every individual has a right to high quality products. Thus, choosing to keep quiet about this unethical behavior would be denying the customer s this right. He should also seek or justice for the customers and for his fellow employees. This only shows how unethical the harry Jackson is if he can give such a directive. Treating employees as if they are not important in the decision making of the company is not right. Thus, Stanton should try as much as possible to stop this transaction from being carried out. If efforts to reach the top managers proved futile, he could even contact the customers themselves and dissuade them from undertaking the transaction. Question four To prevent an occurrence like this from happening in future, the people involved in the production of the cables should always be careful. They should ensure that they exercise much caution to avoid producing low quality warhead cables. Moreover, the company should always be prepared to deal with lots of orders by having enough manpower. Ability to work on orders even in no notices should not be a problem for the company. The manager should also be punished appropriately. Such directives could affect the company negatively thus ensuring that all employees act ethically at all times. It is crucial for the manager to include the employees in all decisions affecting the company. Being a dictator only worsens the situation. Employees would not be comfortable presenting their problems to a dictator manager thus reducing customer satisfaction. The manager should be impeached or forced to go back to school to learn his managerial duties. This is because it was clear that something was wrong somewhere. The company requires managers with qualities that Stanton poses. Managers should not be driven by self interest. The interests of the customer and the satisfaction of the employees would ensure quality cables being produced. This would lead to increased customer satisfaction and such occurrences would be eliminated from the company. Case study two: ex senator ethical questions of use of campaign funds In 2002, a former senator for New Jersey Robert G Torricelli decides to run for a reelection. He raised million dollars funds for his campaign from his supporters. He then quit the race due to allegations of ethical misconduct. He immediately ventured into business which involved a lobbying practice two months later. He garnered clients from all over including Taiwan, Puerto Rico and the US. The main question he had was on how to spend the $2.9 million campaign funds. He funded campaigns for two individuals on the Illinois governor and the other to the leader of the senate majority Harry Reid. These two individuals were in one way or another linked to his business. This made people question his procedure the more. Though the law requires that one use the remaining campaign funds either for charity, candidates or specific political parties, people really questioned his reason behind funding these two candidates. He used his campaign funds for the benefit of his own business. This is because shortly after giving his contribution to Senator Harry Reid, he reached to him to intervene in the case of a Taiwanese client who discussed the opposition Taiwan had on Chinese law allowing usage of force in the event of Taiwan declaring independence. He used his remaining campaign funds to influence many issues that were linked to his business. This is despite watchdogs concerned with campaign financing declaring that it is wrong to use remaining campaign funds for personal gains. Torricelli may not have directly violated laws but he found another way to kill two birds with one stone. Question one Torricelli violated his contributor’s intentions though indirectly. It was evident that he was just using the remaining campaign funds for his own personal gains. He did so under the disguise of helping fund other political campaigners despite gaining in the process. For instance, he held a meeting with governor Blagojevich and a law firm that acted as his private attorney. Five days later, he made a large contribution of $10000 for the governor’s campaign and the next thing people new was that the law firm (Rodos and Bacine), his representative attorney, had been placed in the list of preferred attorneys in the Illinois State Teachers Retirement Process. Apparently, the governor is responsible for the appointment of one board member in the system. Moreover, due to their contribution for his reelection campaign in 2002, cablevision were assisted by the now lobbyist by him influencing the changing of a bill’s wording for the benefit of the company. It is therefore evident that the ex governor used his remaining campaign funds for intentions not intended by the funders of his campaign. He did this disguising himself as trying to help. Question two The ways in which campaigners use their left over campaign funds should be reviewed. Individuals should not disguise themselves as trying to follow the law but using the funds for their own benefit. An authorized body should be established and the politician should present their intended use of the remainder campaign funds. The formed body should then investigate this motive for any connected personal gains for the person in question. In case a personal gain is found, then the politician would not be allowed to use these funds. In extreme cases, the funds should be frozen until an authentic use is established. The usage of these funds should be regulated by a certain authentic body. No single politician or ex politician should use the remaining campaign funds without a go ahead by the authentic body. If possible, a certificate of clearance should be issued in the vent that the use has been verified. The authentic boy should also make a follow up and see whether the politicians do what they pledged to do. Those going against their pledges should face the long arm of the law. Question three Torricelli’s case is another case of a problem of revolving doors between politics and business. His bind to rerun for a senatorial position in 2002 hit a rock due to ethical issues. Then all of a sudden he decided to join business as a lobbyist. He knew he would use his connections as a previous politician to succeed in his business venture. He knew who to turn to and what to do to improve his business situation. Using the remaining campaign funds to fund candidates in the elections in return for personal favors was an intelligent but costly move he made. The government can do a lot to control against these revolving doors. Measures should be established to safeguard against these situations. Any previous politician should be well vetted before establishing a business venture. In case a loop hole is established, then they should be prohibited against establishing the business. If an individual who was a former politician uses the remaining campaign funds for personal gains even if they disguise them as in accordance with the law, they should be heavily punished. This is because contributors of campaign funds only wish for the best intentions to be incorporated wit their money and not letting the politicians benefit personally from such funds. All businesses established with a political twist should be banished. The government should come up with measures of dishing out those individuals who disguise themselves as following the law but ending up evading or bending it. Question four Those who received contributions from Torricelli should not have accepted the funds. This is because before the donations were made to them, they met with him in closed door meetings. The biggest possibility would be that Torricelli was issuing the terms and conditions for his funding. So, they obviously knew the motive behind the funding. They in a way enhanced the spread of unethical behavior by Torricelli. They were as much responsible for the situations as he was. This is unethical behavior of the highest order. Torricelli and the politicians knew the rules of the game better. He obviously knew that he was doing wrong but his self interest came first. This was the same case with the politicians who received his funding. They were only interested in having enough funds for their campaigns. They did not mind bending some few laws to get what they wanted. There are many authentic ways for an individual to get what they want. It is not necessarily important to take the shortest route possible. At the end of the day, honesty and loyalty in business always pays handsomely. Question five Torricelli’s business clients should be concerned about his use of left over campaign funds on their behalf. This is because he could not be trusted with business money. If he could go t an extent of using the campaign money leftover to bend some few laws for hem, what else was he capable of doing? Obviously, these business clients knew first hand what Torricelli was unto. They knew of his motive to convince the political candidates to bend some few laws in return for his funding. This is corruption of the highest order. It is important to consider the intention of the people who contributed that money for Torricelli’s campaign fund. They had their best interest at heart. Coming to a point now that he was using the campaign fund remainder for the benefit of his own business is quite unfortunate. If individuals who made their contributions could just foresee the possibility of Torricelli misappropriations I’m sure most of them could not have made the contribution. Nobody would wish to have their hard earned money inappropriately. He business clients should be alarmed because their business deals could go sour and Torricelli might use the investment made for other shady deals. References Garz, D. (2009). Lawrence Kohlberg: An Introduction. Opladen; Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Giacalone, R. (2013). Unethical Work Behavior. New York: M.E Sharpe. Jecker, N. (2011). Bioethics. Chicago: Bartlet Publishers. Klebe, L. (2011). Managing Business Ethics. New York: John Wiley. Read More