Question
Why did the process occur as it did and where there situations where individuals in the group acted in ways that were ethically questionable?
Introduction The bottle shock exercise is a way to test our individual ethical codes, but what is ethically questionable behavior? By the dictionary definition ethically questionable behavior is “pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.” But what is an ethically questionable behavior to me? By acting in ways that purposely hurt, deceive or victimize to gain personal advantage. In this essay, I will go through what the bottle shock assignment was; how I arrived at the decision I was willing to sign my name off on. I will
…show more content…
According to the information provided approximately 22 million of the plant’s baby bottles were recalled in the USA with Canada following closely behind and it is estimated that 40% of the bottles are still at the distribution stage while the remaining 60% have already been purchased; as well as last years reporting of $28 million positive cash flow and a 28% return on investment. Combining this information with the conflicting information given to each of the managers made it very difficult to achieve a unanimous agreement. Even though senior leadership team suggested three problem solvers and freedom to suggest other options if they were realistic and reasonable it was hard to find common group between the 7 members. Each member gave compelling arguments as to why it was prudent to unanimously agree on their resolver. Some of the managers making this decision displayed unethical behaviors however these managers behaved unethically in order to get an ethical outcome. In the end, we essentially agreed on option number1 that the senior leadership presented us with; to redesign the product, using different plastic, and upgrade the manufacturing plant. This decision went against my boss’s wishes as well as the wishes of my Financial-controlling role; I, however, felt it was justified because the needs and well-being of many were met which falls within my ethical
in one of them making a racial remark, anger was fueled in the group and
The method of ethical decision making which was developed by Dr. Cathryn A. Baird presented two components contained in all ethical decisions which are; The Four ethical Lenses and the 4+1 Decision process. The Four Ethical Lenses issue claims that different ethical theories and the means in which we tend to approach the situations which form part of our ethical traditions are looked at in four different perspectives. From each perspective there are different values on which to decide whether the action taken is either ethical or not and each lens also lays emphasis on determining whether the decision made is of ethical requirement. In the 4+1 Decision Process, people who are responsible for making final decisions in an organization do it using four specific decision making steps and eventually will end up with one extra decision which gives a chance to reflect. The 4+1 decision process allows the decision makers to give solutions when faced with complicated ethical issues (John Muir Institute for Environmental Studies, 2000).
The moment everyone got a designated to a region or team, we already started having an in-group / out-group bias. Everyone designated to the red region begun thinking how we are going to do to make it progress, specially when we found out that we were the only region with nothing absolutely nothing no money, no subsistence and no travel, like I said nothing. We started thinking in a more of a socialistic point of view by making everything belong to everyone in the group and if it was not enough for the entire group to survive we will die together; this made our group to have group cohesiveness by having a perceived unity, we decided that we will start a riot against the other groups to make them realize that we needed their help in order to survive.
“Most people in the U.S. want to do the right thing, and they want others to do the right thing. Thus, reputation and trust are important to pretty much everyone individuals and organizations. However, individuals do have different values, attributes, and priorities that guide their decisions and behavior. Taken to an extreme, almost any personal value, attribute, or priority can “cause” an ethical breach (e.g. risk taking, love of money or sta...
According to the case the problem that needs to be taken care of first is regarding Paul Bertuzzi warehouse supervisor at the Winnipeg facility. Paul on his training met two other supervisors of different locations who revealed to him a moneymaking scheme of selling the company’s latest shoe designs and production techniques to an overseas shoe manufacturer in return for part-ownership in the business. An auditor of the company discovered about scheme of two warehouse supervisors of other facilities and they were fired. Paul and an employee admitted to be aware of this scheme. This problem is very important to be solved as it is related to the company’s confidential information. The manager needs to look deeply into the problem to find out whether they actually had given any information or they just planned about this scheme. Because in case the information has been leaked the company may have to face disastrous problems as the overseas manufacturer may produce and sell the products at cheaper rates than their company, due to which they may have to plan some new ideas to solve the future problem
The six steps of the model are as follows: Identify the ethical dilemma, collect information, state the options, apply ethical principles to those options, make the decision, and implement the decision (Beemsterboer, 2010). The first step is to identify the ethical dilemma, which Beemsterboer describes as the most critical step in the model. To identify the ethical dilemma, one must recognize that the problem is an ethical dilemma with no one clear answer, and expound upon what the ethical question is. The next step is to collect information about the situation and values involved “as a basis for an informed decision.” (Beemsterboer, 2010, para. 8). After defining the ethical dilemma and gathering information about it, one must then state as many options as possible which may resolve the problem (Beemsterboer, 2010). Due to that fact that more than one decision may remedy an ethical dilemma, it is important to discuss all available options to better understand all angles of the situation and how to deal with as many of them as possible. Once all alternatives have been stated, each must be weighed against ethical principles. Beemsterboer suggests in the discussion of each option a list of pros and cons be made to demonstrate how the option may protect of violate ethical principles and values (2010).?? After analyzing each alternative it is much easier
In the same way, groupthink deteriorates moral judgement and mental competence, as retaining group cohesiveness is considered to be more important than deciding in a realistic way. The groups that are more susceptible to this phenomenon have members with similar backgrounds, in this case high ranked politicians and CIA officers, who are shield from outside opinions, all meetings in this case were confidential with only a small group of trusted members taking part in them, and with no clear rules for decision making. (Fledman,
This Coca Cola malfunction incident demonstrates that if attention is not paid to the ethical operation or the company it could challenge and threaten a company’s short and long term performance. This could have long lasting affects on the companies operations and requires strategic decisions to restore company’s image in the eyes of the customers. Gaining the trust of customers takes long time but it is broken with one small incident.
We can use the principle of double effect to analyze this case. There are four criteria for an act to be ethical according to the principle of double effect (Garrett et al., 2001):
Our week five case study, Mattel and Toy Safety, involves toy safety inspection and product recall concerns among outside contractors. In 2007, the infamous toy company, Mattel, recalled a very large number of toy products covered with lead-based paint that were manufactured in China. Mattel responded to the massive toy recall by increasing the testing of all products and reassuring its customers that they will take affirmative action to correct the recall issues as soon possible. In my opinion, I believe Mattel acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner regarding the safety of it toys because as soon as Mattel was aware of a European merchant finding lead paint on their toy products, Mattel conducted an immediate investigation.
We believe this was the moment our group began to transition into the Norming Stage. During this part of the assignment it was crucial for us to communicate effectively in order to ensure that everyone had an understanding of what was required from each perspective. Thus, once we began the research, everyone did a great job of keeping the group goal in mind by finding sources that could be used for every perspective. Additionally, each member kept their personal goals in mind and submitted the required research to our shared document at the agreed upon time. This was a perfect example of how we dealt with a group dialectic. Another dialectic arose when it came time to finalizing who would present each perspective. Some of the group members did not want certain perspectives because they did not have as much knowledge in that subject area as other members did. Furthermore, some group members did not want a certain perspective because their personal opinion might have had an effect on the assignment. In the end, we were able to balance the heterogeneous and homogeneous characteristics of our group members by asking questions, having trust and exhibiting strong communication
For these outcomes, the team has chosen three possible options for alternatives (1) recall, (2) no recall or (3) delay of release. As for the aforementioned list, the group examined there values alongside the fixtures of corporate social responsibility and the consumer sovereignty test. The team analyzed the alternatives with the former under the following four criteria; economic, legal; ethical, lastly philanthropic responsibilities. For the latter concept, the following criteria was utilized, consumer capability, information and choice.
In today’s fast paced business world many managers face tough decisions when walking the thin line between what’s legal and what’s socially unacceptable. It is becoming more and more important for organisations to consider many more factors, especially ethically, other than maximising profits in order to be more competitive or even survive in today’s business arena. The first part of this essay will discuss managerial ethics[1] and the relevant concepts and theories that affect ethical decision making, such as the Utilitarian, Individualism, Moral rights approach theories, the social responsibility of organisations to stakeholders and their responses to social demands, with specific reference to a case study presenting an ethical dilemma[2], where Mobil halts product sales to a garage, forcing the garage owner to stop selling solvents to young people. The second section of this essay will focus on advice that should be given to any manager in a similar position to the garage owner with relevance to the organisational strategic management, the corporate objective and the evaluation of corporate social performance by measuring economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities. It will address whom to think of as stakeholders and why the different aspect could cost more than a manager or an organisation could have imagined.
Generally, ethics is defined as standards of performance that explains how human beings should opt to react during many circumstances in which they meet with friends, citizens, parents, teachers, children, professionals, and businesspeople among others. However, ethics is different from feelings, as feelings make significant information’s available for our ethical preferences. Although some people posses highly mature behaviors that formulate them to feel awful when they get involved in the wrongdoings, most of the people normally enjoy doing bad things.
Baron, Robert S., Kerr, Norbert K., and Miller, Norman. Group process, Group Decision, Group Action. CA: Brooks/Cole, 1992. Pgs. 4, 61, 2, 140, 237, 140, 141, 7, 6