How can you get to the bottom of an issue if employees are upset of being accused of doing their job wrong? Manzoni should have been the one to conduct this meeting to stress the importance of doing the input correctly she is the chief executive officer (CEO). Employees basically rejected everything they were told because of Singh’s approach to the training and the way she talked to them, it is evident since the data entry worsened. Training should lead to improvement not a decline in the services. These are all potential sources of the problem.
In the text there is an outbreak of cholera, also referred to as a “plague”. The Venetians have decided to keep this plague a secret from tourists as tourism is a main contribution to their total revenue. Gustav Acshenbach has figured out something is going on, he asks around but almost everyone is willing to lie in order to protect their own interests. The choice can be considered wrong behaviour, many people may die because they did not know about the disease. Keeping this secret could be considered murder, which is against the law and morally very wrong.
The managers were in fear of being unionized because they were afraid that a union would affect their everyday productions and interfere with their profit. A union would require the company to provide some form of benefits for their employees, which would interfere with company budget and spending. In order to convey this message to Norma Rae, the managers used intimidation by having her secluded in a little room with multiple managers surrounding her. This intimidation strategy had a very little impact on Norma and she could not be influenced by their aggressive point of view. When they took Norma away in a police car, the managers were setting an example to the employees about the consequences of protesting against the company and disrupting production.
We believe that both the employee and the employer were unethical in this case because it illustrates a degree of moral intensity. The employee had a due diligence to the employer and should have brought his concerns to higher management instead of blogging it on a low profile under a false name. The employer had a due diligence to the employee and should have expressed their concern to the employee. The employer could of asked the employee if he could have deleted the blog or edit it so that the name of the employer was not mentioned. The degree of harm that could have happened to the company was not justified because when a search was made in an Internet search and the blog was not easily accessible in the public domain and this does not give the employer the just cause for termination of the employee.
I think that both CEO's should've let their employees know the status of what was going on, because it seemed that they had no idea of the things that were occurring. Also spending the company's money on a ridiculous renovation of the CEO's office is completely unethical. If it were me, I think the best thing to do to modify these decisions is to just focus on the responsibilities of both parties involved. The well being of both companies should have been considered above all by the companies
Openness to Experience - Low Larry is not open to new ideas and would only want things done his way as he is known as a control freak. What effect did his personality have on decision making at Oracle? Ellison’s neuroticism attitude could have had a negative impact on his staff but his unwillingness to settle for anything less than a win might have propelled his staff to work extra hard out of fear. His staff would be the type that listens to him and executes his ideas rather than contributing to creativity hence decision making would be stereotyped to Larry’s decisions on the business which is low openness to new
Similarly, Antonio also has confusion that if, he will do right thing by supporting Kevin through complaining about the fraud to the higher management, he may be fired by the management as top management could also be involved in this. It is because management may think that he was not in the support of the decisions of higher authorities. So, this situation refers the ethical dilemma that is faced by Antonio in which he know that what is right and what is wrong but he could not take appropriate action due to having mental conflicts between moral imperatives. In addition Antonio knew that
DOUBLE EFFECT, PRINCIPLE OF The Principle of Double Effect is a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad and the other good. Conditions. Theologians commonly teach that four conditions must be verified in order that a person may legitimately perform such an act. (1) The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. (2) The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it.
Sheila R. Boulware PHI 204 Prof. Howarth Journal #3 How are there moral facts, or not? Are there moral facts, or not? In order to grasp this concept, we must consider both sides of the coin, moral realism and moral skepticism. Moral realists believe that there are moral facts and moral skeptics do not. “Moral realists contend that an action is morally right or wrong when there is an objective fact involved in the action that is either right or wrong.” (On the Existence of Moral Facts p.1) An action is right or wrong even if no one thinks that it is right or wrong and moral facts are independent of moral claims.
George Keyworth was not a ethical person because he leaked confidential information and also let a investigation be opened, instead of being honest. CEO Dunn showed an ethical attitude and was forced to resign by board members, which describes the other board members to be unethical also. 2. Who are the stakeholders impacted by this situation? How would you rank their claims? Everyone related to this company is affected by this situation.