JH10-9

JH10-9 Developing Your Competencies: What Are Your Ethical Judgments? Janett Benoit MAN 2010 - Principles of Management Professor Heinzman November 11, 2009

JH10-9
Case I: CEO reports receiving a letter about misleading financial disclosures after 3 months and he said he gave it to the companys lawyer, and he (the lawyer) didnt find any wrong doing. My decision would be to ask for time during the meeting for an executive session to discuss the issue. The condition is risk, however subjective. Subjective probability is the likelihood that a specific result will occur; based on personal judgment (Slocum, Jackson, and Hellriegel, 2007, p.257). Im not sure what happened exactly, so I will ask my CEO hoping that he will explain the circumstances to the whole board. My personal judgment tells me that the CEO will be honest with his answers, and if we decide we want to see and examine all the records, then he will agree. This will be an adaptive decision, because I will modify a routine, which in this case will be the board meeting; and also because its a risky subjective condition. I would say Im using a rational model. First, I know Im uncomfortable thinking that our CEO didnt report the issue. So I will set goals and search for alternatives solutions. Once I compare and evaluate them I will either let it pass, ask for a meeting, or talk directly to the law firm. I decided that asking for a meeting was my best option. After the meeting, whatever the outcome, I will follow up and try to have some kind of control over the results, making sure everyone is informed. Case II: Someone is spreading untrue rumors about your company. You know for a fact they are all lies. Wendys decision should be to refute the rumor but dont post any numbers. The condition is certainty, because Wendy knows for a fact that the rumors being spread are lies. Certainty is the condition under which individuals are fully informed about a problem, alterative solutions are known, and the results of each solution are known (Slocum et al.,2007, p.255). Also, its objective probability, because Wendys knowledge is based on facts. Although shes not currently showing numbers, if necessary, she could. This is definitively an ambiguous solution, thus it will not be routine. This is an adaptive continuous improvement decision. Wendy knows that their numbers are good, and she wants to make sure everybody knows about it.

JH10-9
She would be using rational model in this case. She defines the rumors as a problem for her company. Her goal is to inform everyone about the numbers discrepancy. She has different alternatives, but she decides to set the record straight by refuting the rumors. Once she does this, she could follow up by checking the website and making sure they have the correct numbers in place.

Case III: I am a manager of 5 years with a great reputation. Kim, a woman of color, has been turned down for a job you knew she was very capable of doing. Instead, they gave the job to someone else, and you also know this person is not as capable. My decision would be to encourage Kim to speak to the appropriate person in the human resources department and offer to speak to them on her behalf as well about my excellent opinion of Kim and her qualifications. This is an uncertainty condition. I dont know with certainty why Steve chose the other candidate, so I used my personal judgment to make a decision. I dont know what the outcome will be. Even though this is a risk condition, I think Im making a routine decision. Maybe this will fall on the active inertia, because based on the circumstances I would send any employee to HR if the problem were not directly concerning our department. In this case I will use the bounded rationality model. Im not sure if theres even a problem. Im creating my own conclusions from what I know about Kim and her abilities. I have limited alternatives. I dont think it would be appropriate for me to go talk to Steve about something that he already made a decision on. I have limited information, because again, Im not sure if theres a problem or not. Because of all these conditions, satisficing would be my best option. Sending Kim to HR is an acceptable solution for this situation. Case IV: The CEO of our company makes a racist comment about a senior manager. Jeff should confront the CEO about his apparent racism in front of the rest of the board. Jeff would want to have witnesses in case the CEO gets upset about it and retaliates.

JH10-9
This is a certainty condition. The CEO used racist remarks about the senior manager, and everyone who was in the same room with him (the CEO) heard it. This is an innovative decision. Jeff is innovating methods on how managers should be conducting ethics within his company. He wants to open up everybodys eyes by approaching the issue. Jeff would use the rational model in this case. He thinks being racist or making racial comments is a problem. His goal is to make the CEO realize that its not ethical to be racist in any form, regardless of circumstance. Jeff would then look for solutions and evaluate the different options available to him. Nonetheless, he chooses to confront the CEO in front of the board. After this has been accomplished, he will follow up to ensure the companys stance on ethical behavior is followed. Reference: Slocum, J., Jackson, S., & Hellriegel, D. (2007). Chapter 8: Fundamentals of Decision Making. In Slocum, J., Jackson, S., & Hellriegel, D. Competency-Based Management (252-281). Mason, OH: Thomson