Business Ethics - OptiMotors - Case Study Example

BUSINESS ETHICS-OPTIMOTORS CASE STUDY Student’s name Course title Date The objective of this case study is to assess the rationalization for customer entertainment as a part of sales processes. Even though OptiMotors was emerging extremely successful, Bob the CEO of OptiMotors learnt that the company had to devote in dynamic sales leadership. Bob was not certain he was familiar with the means of hiring a dynamic sales leadership. However, it is no doubt that Galen McDowell familiarized well with how to sell. He had the capability to seize higher performance from the sales persons under him. Although Bob’s chief concern was on how the crew would take to their new boss as well as how they would cope with the expectation of raising their game, Galen’s charm did win over the gang immediately. Galen employed numerous tactics that worked amazingly to the extent that Bob foresaw OptiMotors as a national player and not merely a regional shop. However, there was one final tactic, which Galen was working to fulfill. Galen swiftly fastened a big-league team, Kinan Motors, as the potential clients. Accordingly, he invited Kinan’s representatives to take a tour within OptiMotors, and when in town, they would visit the Red Ruby Club. Although Red Ruby was a striper club, Galen assured Bob that the club was upscale and filled with businesspersons, thus the appropriate approach with the Kinan representatives. Galen emphasized that his representatives had frequently used the club to pursue vital accounts far from their rivals. Subsequent to the visit, Kinan did sign a multi-million-dollar deal with OptiMotors Company. The principal ethical dilemma arises whereby Bob finds out that the sales team taking potential customers to strip clubs. This appears to be at variance with the business’s image. Subsequent to realizing what approach Galen had employed, Bob’s initial salesperson, April Hartley did quit. Her efforts to establish relationships with clients proved futile. The tremendously huge accounts seemed not to be searching for more thrilling stuff, which April could not afford them. Moreover, Joan Warren, another salesperson who could gleefully close a transaction whenever she got an opportunity, is complaining since Galen would not allow her to accompany him to the club. She felt that Galen was discriminating her simply because she is female. Hence, she alleges that she will not stand being disadvantaged merely because she is a woman. This issue raises another ethical dilemma. Galen decides to take Kinan’s representatives to a strip club, which he alleges is a locale to partake male bonding. Consequently, he declines Joan’s request to accompany him. This raises an issue of discrimination of women who are unwilling or incapable of participating within sales processes that base on male bonding. Accordingly, there appears to be compromise of OptiMotors’ ability to convey its values to its customers, and thus establish sustainable promotion channels. Utilitarian Utilitarianism judges the moral value of an act from the consequences of the act (O’Donohue and Ferguson 2003, 5). Whatever the value of the theory, it defines rightfulness of acts through reference to the upshots of the acts as opposed to the intrinsic moral traits the acts may convey, such as fidelity or truthfulness. Utilitarian theories vary based on the significant consequences, such as pleasure versus happiness. There exist two principal genres of utilitarian theories, namely rule and act utilitarianism (Veatch 2007, 339). Act utilitarianism identifies rightness with regard to given acts, that is, an action is right if it has the capacity to maximize net utility. On the other hand, rule utilitarianism identifies rightness with regard to the rule of action. It gauges the rightness of given acts on the rule under which the act falls. Hence, a rule is deemed right if general compliance with it capitalizes on net utility, and a given act is right when it lies under the defined rule (Butler 2008, 157). In the context of OptiMotors, utilitarianism occurs whereby the consequences of various acts are perceived. To begin with, Galen’s act did produce effective results. The principal objective was to make Kinan sign a sales agreement with OptiMotors. Hence, Galen opted to take Kinan representatives to Red Ruby Club. Although it appeared immoral to sign a business contract within a strip club, the yield was quite appealing. In a month’s time, Kinan had signed a multi-million-dollar deal with OptiMotors. Joan maintains that Galen was tremendously successful in bolstering the correlation between Kinan and OptiMotors at the Red Ruby Club. She even perceived that this was the appropriate way to carry out future endeavors. On the contrary, Kinan’s act seems not to have yielded appropriate results on the long run. The act led to resignation of April (Mobley and Humphreys 2006, 37). She had lost respect for the company because it had employed a tactic of taking clients to strip clubs. Moreover, Joan was no longer happy with the company. Subsequent to the Red Ruby’s event, Joan had encountered gender discrimination from Galen. Given that this was illegal, the company stood a chance of being sued. This would destroy the public image of the company, and in turn lose the good relations it had earned with its clients. Furthermore, Bob felt insecure about the entire Red Ruby issue wondering what would happen if information leaked that the company was making contracts at sleazy clubs. He felt that the company was susceptible to losing more employees. Bob realized that since the occurrence of the Red Ruby club event, he had remained alone (Mobley and Humphreys 2006, 37). He had been uncertain about taking clients to the track. The entire scheme of spending loads of money with the endeavor of softening accounts appeared more intricate every day. Libertarian Whilst utilitarianism emphasize on social utility, libertarianism identifies justice with a supreme of liberty. Libertarianism maintains that principal moral conceptions are the human rights, which require respect and non-interference (Gaus, and Mack 2004, 115). The mere limit to an individual’s delight of the rights is the person’s obligation to respect other people’s similar rights. For libertarianism, liberty portrays the principal value while justice encompasses permitting people to live as they please, without interference from other people. Libertarianism is slightly similar to utilitarianism on the part where it affords liberty on people on condition that a person does not intimidate others, thus preventing them from exploiting their choices. However, utilitarianism appears quite different from libertarianism because it restricts some people’s liberty, interfering with their choices to promote greater happiness. In this context, libertarianism is manifest in the case. To begin with, Galen inflicts on Joan’s right to be in his business meeting with Kinan. Given that Joan is one of the salespersons, and she has aided the company in making successful sales contracts, she ought to have been allowed to be in the meeting. However, she is denied her right owing to the fact that she is female. This appears to be violation of human right. Furthermore, libertarianism is evident whereby Galen opts to employ the tactic he deems suitable in winning Kinan’s trust. Although there were numerous options, he opted for the choice he found most appalling. Indeed, Bob was convinced that diverse approaches work for diverse clients as well as diverse salespersons (Mobley and Humphreys 2006, 36). Hence, no one had a right to interfere with Galen as long as he did not interfere with other people’s rights. Whilst from a deontological viewpoint it appears wrong to carry out a business meeting within a stripper club, it is right from a libertarianism perspective because no person’s rights are infringed. Ultimately, April had a right to resign given that Galen’s act did not please her. She had a right to choose between staying in the company and coping with the act or to resign and get away from the act. Deontological Hobbes defines deontological theory as right of action (Harvey 2004, 36). According to Hobbes, a right action is a just action, and the sine qua non of just actions is maintaining the covenant. Deontological theorists assert that some genres of acts are inherently good or right on the context of principle (Osmo and Landau 2006, 865; Axinn, 2008; Baron, 1999; Brinsfield, J.W. 1998). These theories aim at fulfilling a person’s duties, that is, respecting the autonomy and rights of other people as well as treating other persons with equal justice. Deontological ethics base on obeying the religious scriptures, institutions emanating from common sense, and natural ethical law. Hence, the wrongness and rightness of a rule or an action bases on the intrinsic moral attribute of that genre of rule or action. For example, acts of promise breaking, murder, or lying are inherently wrong, thus human beings have the obligation to keep off from doing them. As opposed to utilitarianism, deontological morality does not assess an action in view of the consequences. While consequences do not aid in determining which actions are right, they help in identifying the acts that keep with human duty. Consequences aid in finding the appropriate human duty. Hence, deontological theory establishes that a person should treat other persons as objects of inherent value, in this context, not as mere means of attaining a premeditated end rather as an end. In the context of deontological theory, Galen’s act seems to have been immoral. To begin with, it is morally wrong to engage in business transactions within a stripper club. It appears that Bob was somehow in opposition of the act since it occurs intrinsically wrong. Even though the act yielded effectual consequences, it was not conducted in a rightful manner. Moreover, the act failed to treat the Kinan representatives with the due respect. Taking them to Red Ruby Club portrayed massive disrespect. Furthermore, Galen treated the Kanin reps as mere objects of achieving the desired end as opposed to treating them as an end. His mere objective was to sign the treaty and keep OptiMotors on top. Ultimately, it was morally wrong for Galen to discriminate against Joan. He knew well that as a skilled and assertive person, Joan had managed to bring significant sales to OptiMotors. However, he declined to engage her in the business deal with Kanin, alleging that the place he was meeting with Kanin’s reps was meant for male bonding. Virtue Virtue morality supposes that ethics ought to concentrate on developing good character and virtues rather than developing rules. In contrast with deontological theory, virtue theory asserts that moral rules prove hard to apply, thus it does not appear clear which rules should be believed. As opposed to rule, virtues offer the inspiration to act morally. According to the virtue theory, Galen’s act of employing the tactic he deemed appropriate to the company is munificent. Virtue ethics does not focus on whether the intent right, rather on its importance. In this perspective, Galen embarked on what he deemed important to the company. The principal purpose was to make Kinan with OptiMotor’s trust and eventually sign a contract. Regardless of how he did it, he managed to earn the company millions of dollars via a mere act. Therefore, from a virtue perspective, the act was fruitful. I suppose that the utilitarian ethical perspective will work best in OptiMotors’ case. The proponent of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill established that humans have wide-ranging freedoms but the liberty is limited when the person’s actions inflict harm on other people (Christie, Groarke and Sweet 2008, 54). In this context, to come up with the right approach to do business within the company, there is a prime need to weigh the consequences of the act. If the action does not produce effectual consequences, then it ought not to be employed. For instance, it occurs that conducting a business meeting within a stripper club yielded obnoxious results. It led to resignation of April, discrimination against Joan, and fear that clients would lose trust with the company. This is in opposition with utilitarianism, whose utility principle stipulates production of maximum balance of accepted consequences over non-acceptable ones (Veatch 2007, 339). Application of utilitarian ethics within the situation can prove suitable in foretelling the appropriateness of the probable consequences. For instance, it is quite clear that clients can no longer maintain trust with a company that does its business dealings in stripper clubs. Accordingly, the company ought to get alternative course of action, which is conducting their business meeting within respectable locations. The best approach to weigh the consequences is to carry out a cost benefit analysis as illustrated in this diagram. Furthermore, the utilitarian ethical viewpoint points to satisfaction of aims and desires, happiness, and attainment of states of achievement, personal relationships, and autonomy (Veatch 2007, 339). OptiMotors’ use of utilitarian theory would have enabled the company to enhance the stakeholder’s happiness as well as avoid breaching its relationships with different stakeholders. According to Sugarman and Sulmasy (2001, 37), utilitarianism maintains that every party that is affected by the act ought to obtain impartial consideration. Hence, despite being able to adopt appropriate business approach that will deter negative consequences, utilitarianism would have enhanced the ability to solve any emergent negative upshots. In this context, Bob would have been capable of devising means of winning the clients’ trust, dissuading gender discrimination, and preventing employee resignation. References Axinn, S. 2008. A moral military. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Baron, M. W. 1999. Kantian ethics almost without apology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Brinsfield, J.W. 1998. Army values and ethics: a search for consistency and relevance. Parameters. 28(4): 69-84. Butler, C. 2008. Human rights ethics: a rational approach. New York: Purdue University Press. Christie, T., Groarke, L., and Sweet, W. 2008. Virtue ethics as an alternative to deontological and consequential reasoning in the harm reduction debate. International Journal of Drug Policy. 19: 52-58. Gaus, G. and Mack, E. 2004. Libertarianism and classical liberalism. A handbook of political theory. London: Routledge. Harvey, M. 2004. Teasing a limited deontological theory of morals out of Hobbes. The Philosophical Forum. 21(1): 35-50. Mobley, M.E. and Humphreys, J. 2006. How low will you go? Harvard Business Review. 84(4): 33-40. O’Donohue, W. and Ferguson,K.E. 2003. Handbook of professional ethics for psychologists: issues, questions, and controversies. New York: SAGE. Osmo, R. and Landau, R. 2006. The role of ethical theories in decision making by social workers. Social Work Education. 25(8): 863-876. Sugarman, J. and Sulmasy, D.P. 2001. Methods in medical ethics. Washignton, DC: Georgetown University Press. Veatch, R.M. 1997. Medical ethics. London: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Read More