Should Detonation Media Blow up or Make Nice with the Seg - Case Study Example

CASE STUDY: SHOULD DETONATION MEDIA BLOW UP OR MAKE NICE WITH THE SEG? Introduction The economy is not doing very well at the moment but Detonation Media has done well in the past, by making use of the skills of software engineers, in particular, those belonging to the Software Engineers Guild. The fact that some employees have not been working without a contract for over three months suggests that the company does not care about their security. The long hours and constant deadlines means that software engineers burn out easily. Many of them are on strike because they probably feel expendable rather than valued for their contributions to the success of such companies as Detonator. They feel the need to stand up for their rights through the efforts of their union. The state of the current economy makes it a difficult time for companies and employees alike. Companies that are afraid of not being able to sell their wares may find it difficult to make promises to employees that they might not be able to keep. And knowledge workers who are contributing to valuable intellectual property feel that they should have the kind of stake that could ensure that they become rich, if not now, then in the very near future. There is lack of consensus among programmers as someone are willing to continue working while others feel a strong need to stand up for their rights. This division in the ranks of the programmers can easily be exploited by a company such as Detonator whose CEO is concerned more about the bottom line than building a better relationship with software engineers. Key Issues a) Negotiating Position The Chief Executive Officer of Detonation, Emilio Teti, has read the market conditions well and determined that the company is not in a terribly bad position in relation to the unionized software workers. This is because if they refuse to continue working he can hire people outside the guild, and these people, who may be just as skillful but in great need of money, may be willing to accept far less than the SEG is demanding. The members of the SEG have stood by the company for three months and proven that they have the skills and the commitment to assist the company with its development programs. Cutting these people off and seeking a new group of low-paid programmers may serve the bottom line but it may do a great deal of harm to the company’s long term image. Also, the approach of the CEO has been to see the union and the software engineers as adversaries and people to conquer rather than people to court and build a long term relationship with. Though Carol Lee made comments to the CEO that suggested she could empathize with the software engineers, it seems that a certain measure of moral muteness was at play because the ethics of delaying negotiations with the union as a way to buy time until nonunion members could be hired were not discussed. Moral muteness refers to “when people do not recognizably communicate their moral concerns in settings where such communicating would be fitting" (p. 27). When they would be expected to express themselves with respect to ethical concerns, "they either voice no moral sentiments or communicate in ways that obscure their moral beliefs and commitments" (Bird 2002, p. 16; cited in Drumwright 2004, p. 7). As a lawyer, it would have been within her right to voice some concerns about this approach to the CEO but she did not take up the chance to do so. The CEO himself may be guilty of moral myopia. This kind of myopia “hinders moral issues from coming clearly into focus, particularly those that are not proximate, and it can be so severe that it may render a person effectively morally blind. If moral issues are not seen at all or are somehow distorted, it is highly unlikely that sound ethical decision making will occur” (Drumwright 2004, p7). CEO Emilio does not appear to see anything wrong with his plans. He may be feeling that as long as he is not breaking any law, then there is no problem. What is legal, however, is not necessarily moral. b) Issues of trust Carol Lee, the lead counsel for Detonation, seems to have a streak of fairness and may be able to strike a deal that is fair to both her company and the union. She is taking the time to consider the issue from the point of view of both parties while also taking into consideration the nature of the economy. As Skinner (2003) writes, Many people mistakenly put too much energy into manipulating others to get what they want instead of strategizing to conduct a mutually respectful negotiation. We've all seen these manipulative ploys-behaviors designed to throw the other negotiator offguard so he inadvertently agrees to things while emotionally unnerved. These include maneuvers such as deferring decisions to a higher authority to buy time, asking for more at the end of the negotiation, artificially raising one's voice to challenge a stated price, or pitting offers against those of fictitious competitors. (Skinner 2003) Rather than seeking ways to manipulate the union employees, Carol Lee keeps the communication lines open. She does not take a hostile approach to dealing with negotiators from the SEG. When she says that “the way the market is going, the company’s offer is looking less tenable by the day” (Healey 2009, 29), this is supported by current market data and projections (Healey 2009, p 28). It is true that the large number of people at the expo site is promising but not until they have put down cash to buy can they be counted upon. Still, an ethical negotiator would resist taking shortcuts and instead use professional means to accomplish her goal (Skinner 2004). Trust and good faith is necessary in negotiations but the question arises as to whether Dan can be trusted. He certainly has presented the current position of the union, which seems unacceptable to Carol, knowing that her boss is willing to push the union down while making use of nonunion members. But Dan is also aware that Tetsui has potential plans to go on his own and yet he uses Tetsui as part of his bargaining chip while not mentioning anything about the threat. By not disclosing such information, does it put Dan in the position of being considered a liar and therefore unfit to deal with? Rather than each looking at what they can get at the expense of the other, it may be time for the union and the company to consider “integrative bargaining” contrasts with the zero-sum thinking and approach to life. “In a non-zero-sum game, it may be possible for the parties to find courses of action which result in a higher total utility being present at the end than at the start” (Provis 2000). Such an approach would also acknowledge that all are suffering from the effects of the recession and that in order to pull through cooperation will serve their mutual needs. Also, right now, it seems that trust has broken down between the union and Detonation. In fact, as Plovis (2000) notes, “Trust may not automatically be induced by acting in an ethical way, but to act in a way that everyone can recognize and accept as ethical seems at least necessary for trust in many situations.” If integrative bargaining is going to be employed, it needs a full range of information sharing between the parties. Tetsui’s comment, however, may be withheld because it is not an official or formal declaration, and may be considered as mere hearsay. But negotiation may also be likened to trade in which a seller buys something at cost and tries to sell it at a much higher price. We do not usually oblige such sellers to tell us how much they paid for before making our purchase. Likewise, some information may properly be withheld especially if it is not an egregious attempt to lie or deceive another person. c) Finding middle ground Detonation can do better than to cheat the knowledge workers that have helped bring it to its current position in the market. Negotiation with the workers could include the provision of flexible work schedules and other elements that give workers more autonomy over their work. As Gareiss (2008) notes, “As top college graduates enter the IT workforce each year, top companies compete in order to get the best of them. A few years ago, offering a flexible work schedule or a work-at-home setting was a differentiator. Now, it's a necessity.” When workers come to believe that a company is only interested in what it wants to extract from them without giving back, they can only feel resentful and feel the need to fight back for justice. Detonation may be thinking that all that the programmers want is money but through honest dialogue they may find that the company may be able to make some of their deals and payments in ways other than money. As the article “Slackers?” notes, “ Once attracted into the corporate ranks, autonomy, project ownership and cubicle-free workspaces are incentives some companies offer to keep Gen-Xers interested. As for performance rewards, Gen-Xers are as likely to pick impromptu pizza parties and on-the-spot acknowledgment over elaborate year-end recognition banquets. In travel rewards, there's a demand for activities with an edge: hot air ballooning and mountain trekking beat out big buffets and lolling on the beach any day” (Slackers? ). A fun atmosphere for people who create fun products is a must. Carol was on the right track when she suggested that the company give a little ground. What Detonation needs to do is explore the options available and not think that money alone is what will satisfy the members of the union. Deceiving members of the union into thinking that a deal might go through while seeking to hire cheaper labour is unethical and once this information spreads, it will create very negative publicity for the company. The company should not look at short term success, which means conserving their money; they should look at the long term, which means retaining people with experience to deliver time and again what continues to bring success to the company. Bibliography Drumwright, Minette E. & Murphy, Patrick E., “How Advertising Practitioners View Ethics,” Journal of Advertising 33, 2 (2004):7. Gareiss, Robin. “Distributed workforce ‘entitlements’: Wrestling with the “younger generation” and entitlements, Network World (Online), (Jun 24, 2008). Goldsmith, Marshall. “Influencing Up.” 25.12 (Dec 2008):14. Provis, Chris. “Ethics, deception and labor negotiation.” Journal of Business Ethics, 28.2 (Nov 2000):145. Skinner, Merna. “Play Nice.” Successful Meetings, 52.8 (2003):30. Read More