Ethics Case Analysis - Essay Example

Ethics Case Analysis Ethics Case Analysis Summary Case Analysis Case Background Lauren works for a well-respected technology company owing to their reputation for high-quality as a quality engineer. The reputation of the company provided a platform to access a huge contract with a strategic customer/company. The contract involved the design and development of a device to be integrated into a new product developed by the strategic company. The strategic company required help from Lauren’s company to achieve market dominance owing to increased demand and considering its reputation for quality and fast turnaround. On testing the device, Lauren realized the device could not pass the quality standards required. On discussing with her general manager and later her immediate boss, she was instructed by both managers to push the product through despite the results of the quality tests being negative. Lauren was uncomfortable signing off a fraudulent report owing to the under standard nature of the product but overriding the decisions of the managers could result in problems. Lauren could not inform upper management because of the risk of victimization by her immediate and supervisor manager. This case analysis aims to analyze the quality management decision-making where Laurent has to decide on signing off a substandard product or inform upper management to allow for the production of a quality product by stating the ethical issue, analyzing stakeholders, developing alternatives, using different ethical approaches, and choosing a course of action. Ethical Issue The ethical issue in the case involves making a decision that will have impacts on several stakeholders by signing or not signing off a substandard product. The issue is most critical to management in several aspects including the customers receiving an under quality product that will not work as anticipated, breakdown, or underperform making them buy another product. The customers will have been affected by decisions made by Lauren’s company on signing off the product in the current state or improving it to meet quality standards. The customers will know the defect of the product affecting the reputation of Lauren’s company. Lauren’s general manager and immediate manager may be relieved of their duties if she informs upper management of their decision on producing a defective product affecting her happiness at the company. If the managers are not expelled, Lauren’s position in the company will no longer be enjoyable owing to chances of victimization. The impact of the decision will affect the two managers, the company reputation, Stakeholders in the case All the stakeholders in the case have not been consulted with the main stakeholders being Lauren, her company, and the strategic company. Following the decision to follow through with standard product affects the credibility of Lauren’s company and herself with the strategic company being affected by receiving substandard products. There is a need for the two managers to act ethically and avoid a situation that could ruin their reputation, Lauren’s, and that of the company. The managers play a huge role in the decision to produce an under quality product owing to pressure on Lauren to make the decision thinking of her future and the repercussions that could arise. The relation between the two companies could also be ruined and even result in legal battles owing to the need for quality products as stipulated by contract. Lauren’s company will not only lose the strategic customer, money in lawsuits and fines, and also many customers owing to a dented reputation. Lauren has genuine concerns of passing off a sub-standard product as quality owing to the ethical implications, reputation effects, and financial implications when the truth comes out. Her future will also be affected by loss of job and ruined reputation to access other jobs. Consulting upper management could have been a better option for the managers and generating solutions including in conjunction with the strategic company. Alternative action The first option available for Lauren is to reveal her quality assessment to upper management owing to less impact on the company and herself compared to hiding the quality characteristics of the product only to be revealed by the strategic company. The managers ought to have provided Laurent the chance to make the right decision by sharing with upper management the result of the quality tests. The effect would be a protection of the company’s reputation and with a quality product offered to the strategic company open new opportunities to further contracts and other clients. High production costs improving the quality are much better than costs of lawsuits and opportunity costs when low-quality products are knowingly passed as quality to the strategic company and is noted depicting a break of contract. The other option is to sell the product at a lower price and provides the specifications as evidenced in the testing with minimum conditions envisaged stating the level of quality of the product. Offering the product to another company requiring a similar product but with less specification on the quality then developing a better quality product meeting the quality standards required by the strategic company is the other option. The Utilitarian Approach The decision should result in a greater good for the most number of people involved in a case (Mirsky & Schaufelberger, 2014). The choice that offers the most good to many people in the case is informing upper management of the defect in the product for not meeting the quality requirements to sanction development of a product that meet quality requirements. This option delivers results in the strategic company receiving quality products as stipulated in the contract, Laurent’s company saving its reputation, Laurent protecting her reputation and standing for the truth, and customers are receiving quality products. The negative impact on the managers could be avoided by failing to inform the upper management of the plot to continue production of defective products which is allowed by a utilitarian approach that allows using unethical means to achieve the greatest benefit (Mirsky, R., & Schaufelberger, 2014). Not informing the upper management cannot be considered to be lying. The Rights Approach The rights approach entails the need to respect moral entitlements of all human beings in all decisions being made (Lewis et al., 2006). The strategic company being a legal person is entitled to quality products according to the legal obligation by contract according to the rights approach. The strategic company has a right to be told the truth about the quality of the product having paid the full amount and considering the trust it has on Lauren’s company. Lauren is entitled to fair treatment and freedom of expression in her decision relating to the quality of the product but is not given owing to her manager’s pressure to sign off affecting her decision. The right to freedom of conscience prevents Lauren from carrying out an order violating her religious and moral norms and makes the right choice in the case. The Justice Approach The justice approach requires decisions to be based on equity, impartiality, and fairness (Richard & Dorothy, 2001). In Lauren’s case, providing information on the quality of the product to upper management since they also deserved knowing the truth to provide a basis for decision-making. The strategic company also deserves to know the truth of the defect including those who will be affected by the decision including the customers. Treating all the stakeholders fairly will entail making a product that meets quality needs, and all the parties informed of the quality assessment and results. The Common Good Approach This approach considers social responsibility in decision-making and seeks to ensure the welfare of others is upheld owing to common conditions or same privileges in the community (Motarjemi & Lelieveld, 2013). The common good in the case involves the development of a product that meets the quality requirements allowing Lauren’s company to maintain its reputation for quality, the strategic company to receive quality products and the customers to use quality products that offer them value for their money. Laurent will also have protected her role as quality engineer and avoided breaking her moral and religious beliefs by stating the truth despite the repercussions. The Virtue Approach The virtue approach relates to acting morally in a given decision-making situation not only because it is morally right but also because a mature person with good moral character would do the same. Laurent’s decision has to be guided by moral rules of behavior and her character. Considering moral rules on truthfulness and integrity and what a person of good character would do, the choice should be to develop a product that meets quality requirements despite the increased production costs and delays. The choice will augment integrity and reputation of Laurent and her company as well as offering benefits to customers and the strategic company. In conclusion, the case is an ethical issue owing to the ethical dilemma faced by Laurent. The different ethical approaches offer different views on solving Laurent’s, but all guide to the same point relating to a decision that will be fair, good for many, act within moral compass, achieve common good, and achieves equity. The approaches guide to the decision to inform upper management to authorize development a product that meets product quality requirements benefiting most of the stakeholders. Laurent will be free from making a decision that is not morally right, ensure the strategic company receives quality products and protect Lauren’s company’s reputation. References Ferrell, O. Fraedrich, J. & Ferrell, J. (2009). Business Ethics 2009 Update: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. New York: Cengage Learning. Lewis, P., Goodman, S., Fandt, P., & Michlitsch, J. (2006). Management: challenges for tomorrows leaders. New York: Cengage Learning. Mirsky, R., & Schaufelberger, J. (2014). Professional Ethics for the Construction Industry.London: Routledge. Motarjemi, Y., & Lelieveld, H. (Eds.). (2013). Food safety management: A practical guide for the food industry. Waltham: Academic Press. Richard, D. L., & Dorothy, M. (2001). Understanding management. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More