The study is a reflection on an article and the film bearing the case. The study seeks to identify the main ethical issues within the case and other issues relevant to discussion of the case. The study further identifies stakeholders and how varying perspectives make it difficult for stakeholders with differing interests to agree upon what are good and bad. The study further offers recommendations to the case.
The major ethical issue in the case is absence of moral conscience in balancing between personal expectations in meeting financial goals and paying workers adequately for the job. The executives pursue their personal ambition and fail to motivate the workers by increasing their profits or even wages (Barnard 1). This problem is related closely to the failure of the managers to improve employees’ behavior within the organization. The manager, although much qualified for the position held, lacks substantial knowledge on how to correct, guide, and rebuke employees within the organization. Other issues related to business stakeholders are the questions of judgment. Whatever may resemble a straightforward financial decision like the costs by relocating a service center that greatly affects the morale cannot be solved by an equation. Strategic decisions have often gone awry when based on quantitative factors. These issues have often resulted to overweigh of the value of the knowledge acquired. Leaders have often times failed not to give the quantitative values of the organizational goals in their decisions, but they fail to give the correct credence on all the qualitative and quantitative factors.
According to Barnard (42) relevant stakeholders in this ethical issue include everybody in the organization. This is because all living things are known by their behaviors, which is a synthesis of the physical and biological factors (Barnard 46). The major traditional that may be contributing to conflicts between the stakeholders include perception on the personal action and organizational action. An action is perceived as effective after it has accomplished specific objectives of the given aim, whether it was effective or not. An inefficient action is stated if the motives in relation to the objectives are not accomplished or if dissatisfactions are incurred. Inefficiency occurs when the desired objective is not met. These definitions results to two forms of men- the physical and the social. The physical environment in the purely physical environment defines the physical, while the social are formed by communications, interrelations, and contact with other men. In any business organization as a social context, satisfaction is mostly achieved in the social man.
Therefore, the main problem in cooperation is defined by the presence of the physical men who are physiologically conditioned to achieve their goals. The physical perspective therefore makes it difficult for the stakeholders with varying interests in agreeing upon what is good and right. The physical man perceived making huge profits for cooperation and executives as achieving the goal, whereas the social man perceives interacting and promoting the workers as a component of achieving set organizational goals. From the study by Ferrell, I would recommend the social perspective that facilitates verbal communication and motivates men to cooperate. To overcome the challenge of giving false sense of confidence it is needful to identify conditioned reflexes so the past can be overcome.
From the article by Bennis and O’Toole, Bennis and O’Toole begin by stating that business schools are on the wrong track (Bennis & O’Toole Para 1). In the past, MBA programs benefited from the increasing respectability in academia and the developing prestige in the business world. There were selective admissions and more dazzling pay packages for graduates. This is however contrasting with the present realities where these programs have failed to impact useful skills, fail to prepare leaders and instill ethical norms behavior. The major issue being raised in this article is the cause of the present crisis in management education, which is the drifting of culture in business schools. Besides, most of the schools have presently adopted the model of academic excellence, which has ultimately led to failure. Other issues raised in the article include the evolution of business education.
Bennis and O’Toole affirm that business schools claim a dual mission of educating practitioners and creating knowledge through research. In the past, the former mission had been emphasized more than the latter. With the emphasis on creation of knowledge, schools have embraced scientific knowledge through research (Bennis & O’Toole Para 6). Research within the article accentuates that no leading school would hire a professor based on their experience only, rather they would focus on the professor’s academic excellence. This approach is more suited to physical science since minimal ethics is required in relation to studies conducted. In business schools however, scientific model has been embraced to satisfy the ego of the professoriate and make things easier.
I feel that Bennis and O’Toole have rightly specified the problem affecting the present business schools and business management. Rather than engaging workers in the entire operations of the business, executives prefer applying scientific research and discoveries conducted in given periods and varying organizational cultures. The effect to this marginalized school of knowledge is limited business exposure and managerial success. The result of these limited and modern organizational operations is an increasing number of business graduates with required skills that organizations may need. To solve rising issues, business schools must regain their relevance by realizing that business management is a profession and not a scientific discipline. Hence, managers should be equipped with imagination as well as experience in their careers. Humanities ought to be introduced in business classes or students to grasp the imaginative behavior necessary in managing behavior of people in business organizations. This magnifies the need to introduce other forms of knowledge that business schools have forsaken to connect the much-acquired scientific rigor.
Levitt begins by wondering whether top executives are being taken in by pretty words and soft ideas (Levitt 41). Levitt goes on to wonder whether these executives forget that they must be executives first and always. The role of social responsibility is much more than a self-flattery practice. Social responsibility refers to the necessities of the business, participating in community affairs, not just benefiting from the community but also giving to the community. Social responsibility demands the businesses become more concerned with the needs of its employees, community schools, hospitals, and aesthetics (Levitt 42). Levitt mentions about the development of social responsibility from a personal perspective to a present business feature. He goes on to mention about the benefits of social responsibility to include prolonging of lifetime free enterprise among other benefits. From his perspectives, lacking features in the corporations was the aspect of social responsibility since most of the corporations focused on making profits. The main objective of the executives and organizations was a search for wealth and prosperity, which ultimately destroyed the business especially after consumers, overcame executive manipulation. Businesses aimed at owning consumers whereas the same consumers and workers by charging exorbitantly on the products and goods and paying minimal wages for services rendered. After the awakening of consumers, social responsibilities became a feature of the top business organization. Every tie executive discussed of making personal profits, other workers together with the community frowned at such. Presently, social responsibility has resulted to improved lifestyles and better competition between businesses.
To overcome previous competition and increased marginalization, social responsibility has been embraced by top businesses. Other than owning the community, the community owns these organizations as they discuss and define their position in the market (Levitt 2). What people say is ultimately defines the businesses in the modern market. The negative effect of this aspect is the failure of business in achieving their ambitions of making huge profits.
To overcome the mentioned problems in the business world, executives must come to acknowledge that first, they are businesspersons and hence the mandate of making profits (Levitt 1). Based on the materialistic perspective, they must incorporate the aspect of social responsibility, which dictates that after profits have been made, businesses must bear the role of giving back to the society by taking care of the environment and humanity at large. This viewpoint must be upheld in addition to exercising good communication skills, which dictates that managers must recognize the significance of workers and importance of good communication practice as a feature of a successful business organization.
Barnard I. Chester. “The Functions of the Executive.” Harvard University Press. 2016
Bennis Warren & O’Toole James. “How Business School lost their way.” Harvard Business
Levitt Theodore. “The Dangers of Social responsibility.” Harvard Business Review. PP 41-51
YouTube. The Cooperation. October 4, 2011