Bus 220 Ethical Business Challenge Chapter 11 Instructions

Bus 220 Ethical Business Challenge Chapter 11 Instructions Read the Ethical Business Challenge on pages 307 and answer the questions on page 307 using MS Word or a compatible word processing application. Upload your answers to the appropriate assignment folder. DO NOT send a PDF file. The answer to each question must be a minimum of 50 words and must be in your own words. Plagiarism (ie. copying) from the web, the book, etc. will result in a grade of zero.

Compare and contrast the leadership characteristics of Stan and David.

Discuss whether David has any alternatives other than implementing Stan’s orders.

Even if the automation is successful at increasing productivity, what might be some other consequences of Stan’s decision that could negatively impact the firm?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the leadership characteristics of Stan and David, it becomes evident that they embody fundamentally different approaches to management and decision-making. Stan’s leadership style is predominantly authoritative and results-driven, with a focus on short-term efficiency gains and performance metrics. His approach is utilitarian, emphasizing cost reduction and automation to maximize shareholder value. Stan displays traits of transactional leadership, where compliance and performance are rewarded, as demonstrated by his promise of tripling bonuses if the automation goal is achieved. His persuasive manner reflects a manipulative inclination, especially evident in his willingness to alter data assumptions to favor automation benefits, even when empirical analyses suggest otherwise.

Conversely, David’s leadership characteristics lean strongly toward transformational and ethical dimensions. He demonstrates empathy, integrity, and concern for employee welfare, portraying a servant leadership style that values human-centric decision-making. David’s respect for the workers and his expressed discomfort with manipulating data for purely economic gains highlight his moral compass and commitment to ethical practices. He seeks to balance organizational objectives with social responsibility, advocating for transparency and honesty rather than deception or manipulation.

In terms of contrast, Stan typifies a command-and-control style aimed at achieving organizational goals with minimal regard for stakeholder well-being or ethical considerations. David, however, exemplifies an inclusive and principled leadership, prioritizing ethical standards and employee trust. Their leadership characteristics significantly influence organizational culture and ethical climate, with Stan’s style potentially fostering a climate of fear or dishonesty, while David’s approach encourages trust, engagement, and moral integrity.

Regarding alternatives available to David beyond implementing Stan’s orders, he can leverage several ethical and strategic options. First, David can express his concerns scientifically and ethically by presenting the data that shows the drawbacks of automation, advocating for transparency and honesty in communication with employees and stakeholders. Second, he can propose a compromise such as gradual automation or investment in worker retraining programs, which align automation initiatives with social responsibility. Third, if he encounters resistance and perceives that the leadership is committed to unethical practices, he might escalate the issue to higher authorities within the organization, such as the ethics committee or the board of directors, or seek external counsel or regulatory guidance to uphold integrity.

Furthermore, David may consider whistleblowing if internal avenues fail and if he believes that the unethical manipulation of data and layoffs threaten legal or moral standards. Each of these options reflects a higher commitment to ethical responsibility and long-term organizational sustainability than blindly following orders that conflict with moral principles. By exploring these alternatives, David can preserve his integrity and potentially influence a shift toward more ethical business practices.

Even if the automation initiative proves effective in enhancing productivity, there are several potential negative consequences that could harm the firm’s reputation, employee morale, and long-term sustainability. One significant risk is the erosion of trust among employees, who may feel betrayed if they discover that data has been manipulated or that job losses were unduly justified. This perception of dishonesty can lead to decreased motivation, higher turnover, and difficulty attracting future talent.

Another consequence involves social and community backlash. The factory provides a crucial source of employment in the local community, and sudden layoffs or perceived exploitation could result in protests, damage to the company's public image, and strained community relations. Such negative publicity can diminish customer loyalty, especially among consumers who prioritize corporate social responsibility, ultimately reducing sales and profitability.

Moreover, the reliance on automation and data manipulation may create legal liabilities if found to violate regulations or standards for honesty and fair treatment. Ethical lapses like these can lead to lawsuits, fines, and loss of certification, affecting the firm's financial stability and market position.

Operationally, overemphasis on efficiency might compromise product quality, workplace safety, and employee well-being, which are critical for maintaining brand reputation and customer satisfaction. If automation leads to a decline in quality or increases safety incidents due to rush to meet targets or reduced human oversight, the firm risks losing customer trust and facing regulatory penalties.

In summary, while automation can bring significant benefits, disregarding ethical considerations and social responsibilities can produce detrimental effects that jeopardize the firm’s long-term success and societal standing. Ethical leadership and strategic planning are essential to mitigate these risks and foster sustainable growth.

References

• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2019). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. Cengage Learning.
• Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 310-321.
• Kaptein, M. (2011). Behavioural Transparency: Measuring and Managing Disclosure of Ethical Issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 407-423.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. HarperOne.
• Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. Wiley.
• Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics Programs, Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159-172.
• Wood, A. W. (1991). Business and Its Environment. Prentice Hall.
• Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Measuring Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.