Lackawanna BUS105 2021 April Module 2 Assignment Ethical Scenarios Latest

BUS105 Introduction to Business

Module 2 Assignment  

Ethical Scenarios

Read each of the 3 scenarios and answer each of the questions with 2-3 sentences.

Scenario #1

At the annual conference of a national professional marketing body, members have attended dinner, and they are now socializing and networking. One attendee, Sheila, is a regional marketing manager for a well-known coach company. Later in the evening, she finds herself in conversation with a participant who begins by saying 'let me bend your ear for a while'. The person is slightly drunk, and Sheila begins to move away, but the person takes hold of her arm and says 'Listen to me. You and I are competitors, but I think we could be on the same side'. Not wishing to make a fuss, Sheila stays. He then explains that he's disgusted with the way he has been treated, that he has been refused a merited promotion and that he is now 'at the beck and call’ of this inexperienced manager who got the job and who doesn't know the first thing about the product or about marketing. Sheila listens, sympathizes, and then indicates that she has to leave to meet some other people. But the participant says 'I've got something better to offer you. I have a copy of our marketing plan for the next financial year. Don't ask me how I got it. But I want you to read it. I'll leave it for you at Reception in a little while. Read it. Return it to Reception and I'll collect it in the morning. There will be no charge’, he concluded, 'but if I do apply for a job with you remember where you obtained the information that will get you your promotion'. He winks, as he moves away; 'Don't forget, just pick it up at Reception and return it there'.

Questions

1. What do you think Sheila should do? What would you do in similar circumstances?

2.  In general, what rules or guidelines would you apply to cases of this kind? How far is it possible to say 'All is fair in love and war and market competition'?

Scenario #2

The merger and reorganization of two government agencies has been a time of uncertainty and change for those professional and managerial staff whose jobs survived. Jobs and ways of working are changing, with an ever-tighter focus on the latest political priorities. A new Chief Executive heads up the combined authority, and has recruited a couple of new Directors externally as well. Pat works for one of these, Jane, and is pleased when Jane announces early on that there will be a team-building 'away-day' for the whole department in 2 months time. Jane seems to appreciate that past differences need to be laid to rest, confidence in management strengthened, and that big issues surrounding departmental

objectives and work plans need to be addressed. Later on, it is announced that staff from the Contracting section will shortly be transferred into the Directorate - and they, too, will attend the'away day'. Pat is surprised not to receive any documents or background papers before the meeting - except a sheet with directions to the conference center and an instruction that 'dress will be informal: no suits or dresses'. But she still looks forward to a chance to get to know new colleagues; share concerns, and think further ahead than next week. In the event, Pat is deeply disappointed and disturbed:

• The Contracting section staff are present, but effectively ignored.

• The Director starts by saying 'let's think about our objectives for the day - who can suggest some?' After five minutes gathering tentative and very varied suggestions she says 'well that's enough objectives' - and moves on.

• In some of the working groups staff do share concerns and identify what they see as issues. However, the Director responds sharply saying she is 'only interested in solutions, not problems'. Other groups, Pat discovers, quickly adjust their reports to maintain a positive tone.

• Over lunch the discussion is entirely about the weather and Wimbledon. But some more intense discussion seems to take place among twos and threes in corridors, over coffee or in the toilets.

Overall, Pat believes the discussion was superficial, key issues were avoided, and if anything, the cynicism of staff has been reinforced. The next day Jane breezes into Pat's office and says: 'Well, the ‘away day’ seemed to go off quite successfully, wouldn't you say?'

Questions

1.  How do you suggest Pat replies? Can she reply with integrity?

Scenario #3

You are a strategic planner for a multinational organization, which owns and manages tea plantations in a developing country. The organization's advertising emphasizes the organization's 'partnership with the developing world'. In recent weeks, the organization has been the subject of a series of critical articles in a national paper. The articles have contained detailed data about the pay and conditions on the plantations and have described those pay and conditions as exploitative. The newspaper has also commented

unfavorably on the arrangements, which the organization has made with the country's government for the repatriation of profits. The information in the articles has been accurate, and it is evident that a member of the organization has been supplying the information, although the organization has a rule that a member of staff 'must not disclose commercial information to unauthorized persons' and another one which says that 'all contacts with the press must be handed by the properly authorized officers.' At a social function, a member of your department inadvertently makes it plain that it is she who has been supplying the information to the newspaper. She immediately recognizes what she has done and says you 'must ignore what I've said or I'll be fired'.

Questions

1. What should you do?

2. What view do you take of people who behave as the colleague has done, that is, who 'blew the whistle' on the organization? What general principles support your view?