Problem solving - Case Study Example

Your The Problem Solving: Questions Basic Information Who is responsible for this scandal or problem? The CEO, Dirk Henry, because his company is his responsibility.2. Should there be criminal charges leveled against anyone? If so, whom? Yes, it should be to Capt. Miller, Mr. Tobias and Dirk Henry. Captain Miller because it was his duty to man the boat responsibly, Mr. Tobias for failing to handle the boat properly under his watch and Dirk Henry because it’s his company.3. What should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself?

The corporation should be fined for the oil spill and its failure to update their fleet of ships. As a company, safety should always be their priority. They should also be punished for letting an employee drink alcohol while on duty. They should also be responsible for the oil spill mess, meaning they have to clean in up as soon as possible. 4. What actions, if any, should be taken against the CEO? The CEO, Dirk Henry, should be advised to resign because of the bad image he lends to the company by calling the activists tree-huggers, as well as failing as a CEO to upgrade their fleet of ships.

As a CEO, he should take charge of making decisions like that. 5. What actions, if any, should be taken against the shareholders and/or the companys Board of Directors? The best punishment for them would be to serve the community that was affected by the oil spill. They should contribute a large sum of money for the clean up. It is a punishment because they would lose a lot of money, but then again they would earn positive public image for it.6. What external and internal problems has this scandal or problem caused for the corporation?

What can be done to correct these problems? External problems of this company involve their image: they are now seen as a passive company without really caring for its staff and employees. They are also seen as non-environmentally friendly company. Extensive PR campaigns, as well as community work should take care of this, and possibly by sacking their CEO.Internal problems are rooted to the external problems. The employees are now demoralized (it’s their 50th anniversary after all) and they are probably confused.

They are also burdened with the weight of the problem that was produced by the ship mishap. Their stocks would definitely fall, and their company would probably have a financial setback. PR campaigns, and proper forums should take care of the employee’s doubts.7. How did the organizational culture help or hinder this situation? The organizational culture surely helped because they knew their roles as members of the company (except for the CEO). They knew that their actions would reflect to the corporation and they did well.

They knew how to act as a unit.Ethics1. What kind of moral reasoning is reflected in the discussions behind your group decision? The moral reasoning reflected in the discussions, I believe, is the “caring ethics”. The posts revolved about caring for the company, caring for the environment and caring for the employees of the company.What kind of moral reasoning is reflected in each of the individual decisions in the initial responses posted by the group members? 2 What values were evident in your group discussions?

Was anyone thinking of different values when you made your individual decisions prior to the group discussion? Which values took precedence - ethical or non-ethical (those based on determinants other than morals)? 2 Which ethical approach - utilitarian, rights and duties, justice, caring, or environmental ethics - did your group utilize in their discussions? Plan of Action1. What was your plan of action and group decision? The plan of action revolved around the community and the environment. The reasoning behind it is this: when the company shows that it cares for the community and the environment, people would believe that they are not negligent about their employees, especially about the alcohol on board the ship.

There would be no mention of the alcohol mishap or the hiring process.Describe the reasoning upon which it was based. Identify the problem-solving steps used in the teams plan of action. As you progressed with your plan of action, did having more information change your individual or group reasoning about the case? Yes.Why or why not? More information means that one can figure more loopholes; more loopholes mean that you can be better prepared for problems because of the anticipation for it.2 Did your decisions pass the Golden Rule test - Treat others as you would like to be treated -? 3 Yes.Would you care if your decision or process were to be made public? Yes. It should not be made public, although no one should lie about it.

What harm could come to the stakeholders as a result of the teams plan of action? None.Team Member Qualities & Group Process1. How did your team members personality strengths or weaknesses affect the team process? Because of the differences in personality, we had different interpretations on the problem and that provided fresh perspectives in appreciating the problem and tackling it. The team process was quite slow at first because of the personality differences but it proved to be beneficial because one’s personality offered something different all the time.

You may need to refer to some of the assessments and surveys you have taken thus far to answer this question. 2 What were the group "norms" that the team decided upon to complete this project? How did the team decide upon tasks and roles? How did the team decide to resolve conflicts or differences, if any arose? How did the team handle non-participating members or those who consistently missed stated deadlines, if any?