Rachinna khan DB

Welcome to my cultural norm, ethical dilemma presentation. My name is Regina on high selected the million dollar decision as my case.

0:04

Here's some background about the case Pegasus International Incorporation is a manufacturing company of electrical goods used for computers,

0:16

communication and mass storage.

0:25

Tom, as well as the CEO of the company, who has prided himself in building a work environment based on integrity, honesty, teamwork and respect.

0:27

As of late. The wireless communication has been booming within the U.S., as well as in Europe and Japan.

0:36

Tom in the wireless division managers are looking to expanding the company into China due to the high

0:44

cost of bearing wires for wired communication and wireless communication would be good for China.

0:52

But there's a catch.

0:58

In order to obtain wireless frequencies license in China for wireless communication, the company must pay off China to obtain these licenses.

1:00

Managers have discovered that other companies have been using contracting agencies to pay and obtain licenses in China.

1:11

During the meeting, Tom was informed that without business in China, the company would be losing out on 100 million dollars per year in business.

1:20

The ethical, ethical dilemma in the situation is Tom's personal values and the possibility of using bribery to obtain China's business.

1:34

To determine a resolution, I looked at four ethical lenses and principles rule based principle.

1:45

Justice versus mercy principle. The reputation wins and the results ones.

1:51

The rule based principles consists of making a decision based on rules that already exist.

1:58

Tom doesn't want to use bribery because it goes against his personal values, but at the same time,

2:04

there isn't a rule that says he can't use contracting agencies to do bribery.

2:10

Although there isn't a rule about bribery, bribery is frowned upon.

2:16

Next, I looked at the justice vs. mercy principle. Justice means using the legal system and laws to guiding you.

2:21

To a resolution, Mercy is handling a situation internally and showing compassion by using justice.

2:29

Tom could consult with the legal team of the company and see what they have to say

2:38

about bribery if they are able to provide him with information about laws and cases,

2:42

about companies and bribery, as well as legal and ethical consequences of bribery.

2:47

The reputation lens is a combination of sensibility, inequality.

2:54

Thomas think of his position at the company and ask himself, What does it mean to be a good CEO?

2:59

Do I use bribery to obtain licenses in China? What would a $100 million do for the company each year?

3:06

And then lastly, is the results one and that has a core values of sensibility and autonomy.

3:13

Thomas think of think of himself and as how do I want to live my life?

3:19

Do I go against my personal values and go forward with bribery?

3:25

Am I willing to accept the consequences of bribery?

3:29

Am I a hypocrite for using bribery when the company is built on integrity, honesty, teamwork and respect?

3:33

For the final resolution, I selected Justice versus Mercy as a best choice out of the four lenses with the law behind his back and supporting him.

3:44

Thomas, I have to justify why he didn't want to use bribery.

3:52

He is aware of the legal and ethical consequences of bribery, and he doesn't have to jeopardize the company with legal fees if cut.

3:56

This also places them in a win win situation because he doesn't go against his personal values and he doesn't have to use bribery.

4:05

Thanks for watching my presentation.

4:12

Brian Franz db

All right. Good afternoon, everyone, this is Brian friends, and I am presenting my diversity, my cultural diversity analysis,

0:03

and I chose the example of the Pegasus industries case where they are working in China or potentially working in China.

0:12

So we'll dove into that. So Pegasus produces a variety of goods and services,

0:20

but one of them is the primary one and one in this case is hardware and software for wireless communications.

0:26

And they have a mandate within the organization to operate ethically as well as one of their objectives is to grow into emerging markets.

0:33

And so part of that is the dilemma comes from they have this opportunity to expand growth into China.

0:41

There's a big growing market. At the time, the article was written probably still a big growing market in China for wireless communication.

0:47

And that's great that the estimate is about $100 million in profit,

0:54

which must be a very large company because they said it's not life or death, but it's a great profit margin.

0:59

So $100 billion, obviously tempting.

1:04

But one of the conditions that causes it to be a dilemma is that each region

1:09

or each city in China has a different frequency for their wireless network,

1:14

and each of those frequencies has to have a separate contract. That contract typically comes with a pay off or a bribe to a local official.

1:17

So their CEO, Tom iswell, feels that's unethical and feels it's not right.

1:25

And so there is this dilemma of this great opportunity, but also his spidey sense is up.

1:31

He doesn't feel that it's right, so there's a few different loopholes they could use.

1:36

They can do this without directly violating anything ethically or legally.

1:40

One of the things that is done is you pay a consultant a certain fee to go out and get you the license.

1:46

With the understanding, it's tacitly understood that that person will just pay the bribe on your behalf, but you can claim plausible deniability.

1:52

So there are ways to do this without clearly breaking the rules,

2:01

but it creates this gray area with no clear right or wrong answer and no clear answer that gives you the best benefit for all the stakeholders.

2:04

So we'll look at it through a few different lenses. But starting with stakeholders, the CEO obviously has to make that decision,

2:13

and he has prided himself as an ethical leader and [INAUDIBLE] be held responsible for the success of the endeavor or possibly for turning it down.

2:20

And, you know, people on the board or the shareholders might ask, why did he turn down 100 million dollars a profit?

2:29

They have Japanese partners in that market who may or may not share those same reservations and may wonder why they have a

2:36

partner in the area who is willing to forego 100 million dollars profit that could affect their future business relationships.

2:41

The company has high morale and is proud of its ethical culture,

2:49

and so doing something that even introduces a gray area could affect that and cause them to question her leadership.

2:52

And then the shareholders, which they're imperative, is to maximize profits.

2:59

And the board has a responsibility to facilitate that.

3:05

So they might also question why would you pass up a $100 million project when you know we we expect you to earn profits for us as shareholders.

3:08

So looking at it through the different ethical lenses or social relativism is a comparison

3:20

with what other people in your peer group or your cohort would do in the same situation.

3:25

And the team that talks to you is pretty clear that this is happening.

3:29

Other companies are doing this using that proxy payment system, and his team either says what would be the harm.

3:34

So it really passes the social relativism test again, culturally looking at cultural relativism.

3:39

What are the cultural and legal norms require? Essentially, if it's culturally and legally accepted that it can't be wrong?

3:46

Well, they can do it without violating any laws,

3:51

and they could argue that it's a widely accepted and widely known practice in China, so culturally, it doesn't violate anything.

3:54

And looking at the ontology?

4:01

And we're told, is a very ethical person who prides himself on his ethical leadership, and that is something he wants to pursue.

4:03

But to make the best interest. Decision for all of his stakeholders, is it possible when some of those interests run counter to each other,

4:11

so the interest of the stakeholders to maximize profits and earn this money is against what Tom believes, which is that it's not ethical.

4:19

The interest of the Japanese partners to pursue it is different from the

4:29

interest of the culture of the organization is proud of their ethical behavior.

4:34

And so they might question why we have partners who would want to go forward with this when we don't think it's right.

4:38

So you could make a decision that you really can't reach could go into logical

4:44

decision because there is nothing that's in the best interest of everyone.

4:50

And rather than going with a utilitarian decision and looking what's in the best for most,

4:53

I went with the results based, which is what do we want to be do and have?

4:57

And that's a holistic kind of focusing on longer term what's best for the organization.

5:02

Any conclusion? I think the right path forward, there is no clear answer.

5:07

Somebody will suffer regardless of what decision they make. Somebody will be unhappy, regardless of what decision they make.

5:12

You can't reach the ideal solution.

5:18

So you have to consider what direction you want the organization to go in and what are the long term consequences of action or inaction in this case.

5:19

So they should decline to do it because it ethically doesn't meet their principles.

5:27

You don't have to share the principles of those that you're doing business with,

5:33

but you have to honor your own or else you are no longer in ethical organization.

5:36

So if the is required, they simply can't do it if they can find another way to do it without tacitly or implicitly condoning these bribes.

5:40

If they can find a way to not pay the bribes or make their product so competitive that somebody is willing to go through and

5:49

license it without this pay off or find a way to have a clear regulatory guideline for why they're making these payments.

5:58

Sure, but they can't compromise their own ethics for this deal, because that puts them on a slippery slope for future deals.

6:07

So that was my my thoughts on this case study. Here are the references, and I thank you all for listening.

JULIA BLUM CULTURAL NORM

Captions

Discussion

Notes

Bookmarks

Hide

Hi, everyone, this is my cultural norm analysis presentation.

0:02

I chose the case study that dealt with the construction company that was building the two cranes

0:08

instead of one after they had written into the contract that they would only need the one crane.

0:15

So the cost of building the company, the extra crane the last two months was an Astra cost of ninety six hundred dollars per month.

0:23

Both the project manager and the general contractor were both insisting that both cranes were being used.

0:37

Even though that you were making visits and you were seeing that they weren't being used.

0:45

And this is an ethical dilemma because, you know, more than two right values were being conflicted,

0:54

and we'll examine this through a few different ethical lenses.

1:02

You know, I'm conducting a stakeholder analysis through the companies perspective.

1:06

This could cause the project to run over budget by being billed for the extra cranes or the schedule to get out of hand.

1:11

And the construction company is being ethical by breaking the contract and

1:19

building their clients extra because it came out that they are in some debt.

1:25

So the first ethical lines is one of Trevino's eight steps is identifying the consequences so they could.

1:33

The company could decide to hire a consultant to fight for only one crane since I was in the contract.

1:43

But that could delay the project timeline if a construction company decides to fight for them,

1:50

and it could end up in a greater loss because time is money.

1:57

The construction company could also hide other costs from them down the line if they decide to stay with the same construction company,

2:02

and they could throw other things at them that are unethical later in the project.

2:11

And if they go after the construction company, it could have the potential to make their company look bad.

2:17

If we're looking at this through their responsibilities lens, trust, you know,

2:27

trust was broken because trust is and honesty is the foundation of their responsibilities lens.

2:33

But the company could kind of play hardball and just not pay for that extra crane when it comes to the next month of the bill.

2:42

But, you know, going back to consequences, the construction company could get quite mad,

2:55

they could stop construction or it could again delay the project timeline.

3:02

You know, we could have potentially hazardous outcomes, and the construction company could end up fighting the company.

3:11

Or you could definitely take this to the next level and fight since that project manager and the general contractor are not budging,

3:22

that the two cranes are being needed.

3:31

You could definitely escalate the situation to someone higher in the company and ultimately blow the whistle on their business practices.

3:33

And then going back to Trevino's eight steps you to think creatively you could terminate your contract and start with a new company or.

3:43

But this has the potential to be quite timely and costly endeavor.

3:54

Here are references and thank you.

3:59