1 of 26
\nMGT 552 \u2022 Stakeholder Theory and Social Responsibility \u2022 Weidner
\n\u201cEthics Grand Rounds\u201d case ranking<\/p>\n
1. I received cases from 25 of 26 class members by this morning\u2013 thanks! Each case has an
\nalphabetical code (A through Y) at the top of each page.
\n2. Some (but not all) cases have been proofread, reformatted, or had minor edits so that the
\nindividual cases look as similar as possible (note: I don\u2019t edit or screen the cases). I made no
\nsubstantive changes to the content of the cases. I force-fit each case to one page \u2013 you can
\nresize the fonts, etc., for your on-screen or hard copy convenience.
\n3. Please rank order the cases \u2013 except the one you wrote \u2013 as follows:
\n1 = your most favorite;
\n2 = your 2nd favorite; etc., through the entire pool, so that
\n24 = your least favorite case (rank all cases 1-25 if you didn\u2019t send a case)
\n4. Please enter your rankings in the attached spreadsheet in the designated (yellow) row. A
\nchecksum (300) is provided to help you catch duplicate or missed rankings. If you didn\u2019t
\nprovide a case for the pool, your checksum is 325.
\n5. Save the file with the filename LastFirstRankings.xls, where Last and First are your names,
\ne.g., my file would be named WeidnerKenRankings.xls.
\n6. Send me your case rankings via email by 12 noon EDT on Tue 11 Sep.
\n7. Contingency (plan B): If your e-mail is suddenly unavailable, go to the Canvas website and
\nsend me an email from there and attach your file, and send a copy to yourself so you will
\nknow whether or not the attachment got through. Also, make a posting on the Clarifications
\nDB to alert me to your technical difficulty. Due to the size of our class, I cannot intake
\nrankings by phone. Please note: There is no plan \u201cC.\u201d
\n8. I will maximize the match of the assigned cases to each class member\u2019s preferences, and
\nyou\u2019ll get your group membership (26 class members likely means 7 cases will be assigned
\nto keep case group size to 3-4 members), assigned cases, and in-class discussion date by
\nWed 12 Sep. Folks who don\u2019t indicate their case preferences will be randomly assigned to a
\ncase (first option is other folks who didn\u2019t provide rankings). You\u2019ll also learn which cases
\nother teams have been assigned so you can read the appropriate case(s) in advance of its
\nin-class discussion.
\n9. You\u2019ll receive a guidance document for the group case. Your presentations of your decisions
\nand rationale should be both brief and informal. Your group should lead the class\u2019
\ndiscussion of the case. We\u2019re after the issues and the processes we use to resolve them.
\n10. In case you\u2019re curious\u2026the cases were originally roughly \u201calphabetized\u201d based on the first
\nfew words of the case.
\nThis looks like a great set of cases. Give a holler if you need any additional information. ckw
\n2 of 26
\nCase A
\nA restaurant is a place where people are served by the owner and his staff with a menu of food
\nand beverages. The restaurant may have a specific list according to the concept of the
\nrestaurant and the availability of products in the market. There is a dilemma about the ethical
\nbehavior of restaurant owners about the products they serve in their restaurants regarding the
\nhealth of the customers and how the operations of the restaurant affect the surrounding
\nenvironment. The real discussion for a restaurant is not to be ethical or not, but to be honest
\nwith the provided products and ingredients in the restaurant. Having an ethical behavior in the
\nmanagement of a restaurant lacks practicality because, from ethics, the best recommendation
\nthat ethically a restaurant owner could provide to a customer is to eat in his\/her restaurant
\nbecause the home-made food is healthier and cheaper than the restaurant food.
\nFrom my personal experience I cannot take an \u201cethical\u201d position to protect the health and
\ninterest of the customer because to know if a customer has alcohol or lactose problems, to
\nprotect his\/her health is necessary to know the medical record of the person and that goes out
\nthe scope of the restaurant. If I am the restaurant owner, I cannot guarantee the food served in
\nthe restaurant is healthy for the customers. For example, a menu will have a different effect for
\nan athlete than to a no-lactose tolerant customer. It is not useful to use an ethical approach in
\nthe restaurant management but to use an honest speech. Using an honest speech is preferable
\nfor me, the manager, the employees, and the customers. The honest speech will say what the
\ntarget of the food, the quality of the ingredients and the level of fat that the customers will eat
\nin the restaurant is. The availability of non-alcoholic drink and dessert and the purpose of the
\nrestaurant to make a profit to be sustainable over time.
\n3 of 26
\nCase B
\nAt a substance abuse treatment facility, morale has been declining precipitously in the
\nadmissions department. Day in and day out, they field phone calls from struggling patients and
\ntheir family members in moments of true crisis. They are tasked with helping these callers
\nnavigate their way through what is more often than not the worst day of their lives. None of
\nthem would contest the fact that their work is mentally and emotionally taxing.
\nHealthcare facilities obviously generate revenue through treating patients. The admissions
\ndepartment is responsible for filling the facility\u2019s beds, and its performance is therefore directly
\ncorrelated to the success of the company as a whole. Employees of the department previously
\ncomplained that they received the same compensation whether they admitted twenty patients
\na day or five patients a day. To address this, the company implemented a performance bonus
\nprogram at the advice of a consultant. The bonus program tied objectively measurable
\nperformance indicators to financial incentives (i.e., number of patients admitted, total dollar
\namount of copayments collected over a time interval, etc.). The bonus package proved to be a
\nreal hit with the line staff, as well as serving its intended goal of boosting their output. For
\nmonths on end, the company hit its budget goals, and the employees benefitted financially.
\nDuring the month of December, 2017, the company experienced an inordinate number of IT
\nissues. Relocation of an outpatient office and transferring numbers between different phone
\nvendors somehow took out one of the company\u2019s main phone lines for a period of one week,
\nwhich clearly cost the company business. The admissions manager estimated the loss to be in
\nexcess of $120,000 of revenue. The department\u2019s employees protested that they were counting
\non bonuses to help pay for holiday gifts and that the decline in performance was not their fault.
\nAfter all, they had come extremely close to meeting their goals despite this setback. Rumors
\nwere spreading that veteran staff members were interviewing elsewhere. The executive
\ndirector acted rashly and calmed a room full of concerned employees by telling them that he
\nwould be approving the performance bonuses even though the targets were not quite met.
\nThe only problem, unbeknownst to the staff members, was that the only individual able to
\napprove the performance bonus was the CFO. The admissions manager later approached the
\nexecutive director, to whom he reported, and inquired as to whether or not he had already
\nobtained approval. The executive director instructed him to simply submit the performance
\nreport and bonus payouts to the CFO under the pretense that the targets had been met, as he
\ndid not believe that the CFO even knew what the targets were.
\nThis placed the admissions manager in a quandary. His department was likely structuring their
\nholiday plans under the impression that they would be receiving bonus checks at the end of the
\npay cycle. However, intentionally deceiving a C-level executive was not exactly a favorable
\nalternative. On the other hand, by coming clean, he risked incurring the wrath the individual to
\nwhom he directly reported, and potentially that of the staff as well.
\n4 of 26
\nCase C
\nAt the end of 2016, I was looking for a new car due to my current car breaking down repeatedly throughout
\nthe year. After weeks of intense research of looking at cars on numerous websites and looking at cars at
\ndealerships locally I finally found a car that fit my needs completely. I had to travel a distance to a dealership
\nin the Lititz, PA area. I am someone whom is an avid car person and wanted a German luxury, sports car that
\nwasn\u2019t overpriced and had low mileage. At the dealership, I test drove the car a couple of times and went
\nover the full Carfax report in depth with the sales team. The Carfax report showed a completely clean history
\nfor the vehicle. It only had a couple of owners including one being a company car. It had routine maintenance
\nservice at dealerships in the Philadelphia area such as oil changes and brake fluid flushes. It didn\u2019t even have
\nany open safety recalls that I would have to take care of as owner. The dealership had recently put on brand
\nnew tires and brakes on the car. After thoroughly reviewing the Carfax and asking questions to the sales team
\nsuch as whether the car had ever been in an accident, I was told the car was never in an accident. I decided to
\nbuy the car, which was under $20,000 and had less than 20,000 miles for a German luxury, sports car.
\nAfter a couple of months of sheer driving pleasure with the car, one night I had come back to my apartment
\nafter a night out at the movies and discovered a white scratch on the back bumper. It had appeared someone
\nhad purposely scratched the car, so I took it to a local body shop to get an estimate. The next day I received a
\ntroubling call from the body shop letting me know they had discovered a serious problem with the back
\nbumper. They noticed the back bumper was slightly raised so they decided to take the bumper apart and
\nfound a patch up job underneath including a bent metal rod that holds the bumper together. At that point
\nthey realized the car had previously been in a serious accident. They then took apart the front bumper and
\nnoticed some further patch up work underneath. Once they put together the full estimate the damage came
\nout to around $2,500 for all the repairs. I called my insurance company and had them run a full investigation
\non the car and see if the VIN # pulled on any of their advanced systems. It came back with a hit a couple of
\nyear\u2019s prior that my car was involved in a multi chain car accident. My insurance company couldn\u2019t disclose to
\nme the name of the individual that had leased my car during the time of the accident.
\nMy insurance company was able to provide me the name of the insurance company the individual used
\nduring the time of the accident. Unfortunately when I called the insurance company they couldn\u2019t provide
\nany further details to me other than that my car was involved in a multi chain accident on a specific date in
\nthe Pittsburgh area. Based on my findings it was basically concluded that the individual who had leased my
\ncar was paid out by their insurance company and decided to go to a private place or a friend to get the car
\nfixed at the bare minimum and pocketed the rest of the money. As a result of also not going to an accredited
\nbody shop to get it repaired the accident was never reported on the Carfax report. At this point my hands
\nwere tied with not being able to track down the name of the individual who had leased my car and caused
\nme all this pain. I ended up paying the $2,500 out of pocket to get the car completely repaired properly. Once
\nthis was done my goal was to go after the dealership that sold me the car or even inquire with the actual
\nGerman car company to get refunded for the repairs. I didn\u2019t have much luck with either as the dealership
\nkept denying that they had no idea the car was in an accident despite all my questioning to them before
\nmaking my decision to purchase it. The German car company opened up multiple cases in house with their
\nfinance department but concluded that they couldn\u2019t provide any financial assistance to me for my problem.
\nFinally I decided to really escalate it with the Pennsylvania government by taking the case to local court to go
\nagainst the dealership in Lititz, PA that sold me the car. I wanted the court to find the dealership guilty for
\nknowing or needing to have a better system in place to determine if a car they are selling was in a previous
\naccident or not. I was looking for the dealership to cover for me all the repair losses that I had to incur.
\n5 of 26
\nCase D
\nCa company is an Egyptian diversified manufacturing company active in household plumbing
\ntools, iron, and metal and provide these parts to many countries and Gulf Cooperation Council
\n(GCC). Ca company is a strictly business to business seller also they do not warranty on all its
\nparts. Most of Ca company revenue comes from sale of household plumbing tools. Foreign
\ncompetition could produce the same products in Ca company and ship them abroad for a little
\nless money than Ca company. Also, there is a huge pressure from costumers for Ca company to
\nreduce slightly their price on these household plumbing tools and electrical cables, however, Ca
\ncompany rise the prices because the ship and manufacturing materials are rising. Ca company
\nalready has strong tight profit margin and they are working to reduce costs in manufacturing
\noverhead.
\nHassan works as the managers of product design group and he asked to find solutions to
\ndecrease the costs of the household plumbing tools and electrical cables. This idea has been
\nworking on it for year and management is exciting to get results. Hassan assigned a team of
\nengineers to design and produce an alternative household plumbing tools and electrical cables
\nwith uses less material and labor.
\nThis option of alternative should be reduced the cost until 55% from the original cost of the
\nproducts but this alternative design approximately may achieve the required profits, but this
\nidea also may fail within year and half.
\nAccording to the design which the Ca company will increase in their profits Hassan will get more
\nfeatures, increase in his salary and comprehensive insurance health for his family.
\nHowever, the new design probably affected adversely in many people houses and it caused the
\nfire because the low quality of household plumbing tools and electrical cables.
\n6 of 26
\nCase E
\nCollege was everything that Timmy imagined and then some. Athletically, Timmy was a member of the
\nfootball team at Hawks University, which was the most popular sport on campus. Not only was Timmy
\nfortunate enough to be on the team, but he was offered a full scholarship for football. Ultimately, the
\nsubstantial scholarship was the reason Timmy chose Hawks U. At home his family did not have much
\nand wouldn\u2019t have been able to send Timmy to college without a large scholarship. On the field, Timmy
\nwas the best inside linebacker on the team leading Hawks U in tackles last season. Through Timmy\u2019s
\nleadership and performance, he was named one of the four captains of the team for his upcoming junior
\nyear. In the classroom, even though Timmy was no rocket scientist he worked hard to earn solid grades
\nand was well on his way to a degree in business administration. During Timmy\u2019s freshman year he met a
\nbeautiful girl named Nicole and they have been dating since.
\nSituation: Junior Year \/ Fall Football Season \/ (Timmy & Nicole both turned 21 over the summer)
\nAs the fall semester progressed, Timmy noticed that Nicole began visiting her friend Tiffany who lived
\noff campus. Nicole reasoned that she shared a major with Tiffany, so they took many of the same classes
\nand studied together. To Timmy, it did not seem like anything was wrong since Nicole was a biology
\nmajor who took some of the most challenging classes at the University.
\nFast forward to the end of the football season, the team had another successful season. Timmy and the
\nteam made it all the way to the conference championship where they came up just short of a
\nchampionship title. Individually, Timmy was one of the top performers on the team again. Through his
\nperformance Timmy earned a spot on the all-conference team and nearly earned All-American honors.
\nMaybe professional football might be in Timmy\u2019s future.
\nSoon after the season ended Timmy ran into Nicole\u2019s friend Tiffany on campus. Of course, Timmy asked
\nhow her classes were going and they eventually talked about Nicole. Timmy mentioned that Nicole was
\nthankful for Tiffany\u2019s help with the classes and Tiffany said that she hasn\u2019t seen Nicole or been in a class
\nwith her since their sophomore year. Upon hearing this, Timmy decided to do some investigating. The
\nnext time Nicole mentioned she was going to study with Tiffany, Timmy decided to follow her to see
\nwhere she was really going. Eventually, Timmy followed Nicole\u2019s car all the way to their head coach\u2019s
\nhouse (coach Richards). After returning to the house the next morning, Timmy saw that Nicole\u2019s car was
\nstill in the driveway. He knew he was going to have to confront Nicole.
\nAfter a long and heated argument, Nicole never admitted to sleeping with the coach. Nevertheless,
\nTimmy and Nicole broke off their relationship and Timmy began to struggle academically. At the end of
\nthe semester Timmy had failed three classes and was called into coach Richards\u2019 office. Just when
\nTimmy didn\u2019t think it could get any worse, coach Richards informed Timmy he was being kicked off the
\nteam due to his poor academic performance and failure as a leader. Upon hearing this Timmy was
\nfurious and threatened to inform University administrators about the situation with Nicole. Coach
\nRichards then denied anything ever happened, reasoning that Timmy would never be able to prove
\nanything. Furthermore, if Timmy tried to go to school administrators coach Richards threatened to cut
\nhis scholarship. Timmy knows that without the scholarship he would never be able to finish school, but
\nhe loves football and wants to have a shot at the NFL. Since his grades have dropped considerably, it
\nwould be hard for Timmy to get a full scholarship at another school. Since Timmy was kicked off the
\nteam, his teammates are scared to speak up and support Timmy. What should Timmy do?
\n7 of 26
\nCase F
\nCompany X had originally been having trouble filling the position of Accounts Payable
\nSupervisor. The previous individual in this position was fired for wiring $500,000 to hackers in
\nLondon without the Director signing off on it. There was a three month gap between her
\nrelease and the hiring of our current AP Supervisor. There was one intern that worked under
\nthe previous AP Supervisor and when the new supervisor was hired, he left the company. It felt
\nlike the Accounting and Finance department couldn\u2019t catch a break. The work was being split up
\namong the remaining people in the department and causing a lot of stress to these workers.
\nAfter one month and few interviews, the Director found a man named Bob to come in and fill
\nthe data entry intensive position of the AP Intern. Unfortunately, he lasted about three weeks
\nand had to be let go for making inappropriate comments to multiple women in the department.
\nNow this department has experienced one employee who went behind the back of the Director
\nand wired hackers money, and another that harassed women in the department. The stress of
\nfinding a good, qualified candidate was increasing. One month later Karl was hired to fill the AP
\nIntern position. Karl always comes into work early and stays the whole work day. He is nice,
\npersonable, and easy to work with. However, Karl\u2019s work is below average. He makes multiple
\nmistakes per day and works at an extremely slow pace. These mistakes are not only affecting
\nour financials, they also slow down other workers. Employees in the department have to take
\ntime out of their busy day to correct his mistakes and show him, time and time again, the
\nproper way to complete simple data entry tasks. It has reached the point where the director is
\nno longer certain that having him in this position is speeding up any of the processes relating to
\nAP.
\nThe director is now questioning if she should fire him because of the fact that he is slowing
\ndown a process that really needs to be accelerated. Should she keep him on the team because
\nhe gets along with everyone really well? Should she keep him on the team because he is better
\nthan the last intern in his position and we\u2019ve had a difficult time filling the position? Or should
\nshe let him go because he might not be the best fit for the position?
\n8 of 26
\nCase G
\nCool Tech is a successful technology company that specializes in selling computer software.
\nClients spread across many different industries such as healthcare, banking, retail and much
\nmore. Sales teams are created to close deals with clients and sell them the software that they
\nneed. Each sales team is made up of seven sales members and one manager. Bob has been a
\nsales manager at Cool Tech for three years and has had the same seven people working for him
\nduring that time. Bob has a compensation plan that earns him more money when sales are
\nevenly distributed throughout his team. Thus, it would benefit him for everyone to make
\nmultiple sales, rather than one person closing every deal.
\nSarah and Ashley both work for Bob, and this quarter Sarah has made three sales, while Ashley
\nhas made none. Everyone on Bob\u2019s team has made a sale this quarter, except for Ashley.
\nFurthermore, Sarah is the only one on the team to have made multiple sales this quarter. Bob
\ndecides to organize a meeting with Sarah where he will propose the idea that she should give
\none of her sales to Ashley so that he can make more money because of his compensation plan.
\nIn doing so, Bob will pay Sarah extra money under the table, making her earn more than what
\nshe would have earned on the commission from her original sale. No one should find out what
\nthey are doing because when a sale is finalized with a customer, Cool Tech is credited with the
\nsale, not the individual sales member. The commission on the sale is what is being transferred
\nfrom Sarah to Ashley, making it a purely internal deal. Sarah is on her way to the meeting with
\nBob and must decide to take the deal or not.
\n9 of 26
\nCase H
\nDavid is a Business Consultant for a mid-sized Franchised based Gas and Convenience Store organization
\nbased in the South-Western United States. As part of David\u2019s core roles, he is accountable for growing
\nthe revenue base within an assigned territory, growing the brand\u2019s reputation, and is responsible for the
\nfull Profit and Loss Statement of a 20 location group. David is 2 years into this assignment, with 1 year in
\nthis group. Gas-And-Go operates on a franchised business model, in that, locations are sold to
\nfranchisees, who in turn operate one or more locations. The new business owners are accountable to
\nadhere to the policies of the brand. These policies include among others, adhering to all local, state, and
\nfederal labor\/business laws, safe and consistent food safety practices, demonstrating industry leading
\ncustomer service, cleanliness standards, and adhering to Gas-and Go\u2019s 24 Hour business model.
\nFranchisees are independent business owners, who must operate within these guidelines, but have
\ncomplete and total ownership over the short and long term operation of the location. Additionally,
\nFranchisees gain access to Gas-and-Go\u2019s industry leading business model and resources.
\nOne of David\u2019s new stores is located in Glennville, New Mexico. Glennville is an economically depressed
\narea, notorious for high crime. This location is no stranger to violent incidents. Among a higher than
\naverage Incident Rate (defined as theft, police activity, and property damage), the store is also among
\nthe top 3 stores in the 400 Store Market for armed robberies. In one incident in 2012, a cashier was
\ncomplying with an armed robbery, but was shot and killed during the transaction. Since that time, there
\nhave been sporadic to regular incidents, however no other injuries have been reported.
\nDespite the high Incident Rate, the Glennville location is one of the highest grossing Sales stores in the
\nMarket. Due to its close proximity to the Route 7 Interstate Ramp, the store receives constant traffic
\nflow through the morning and into the evening, before slowing down during the overnight hours.
\nOne year into taking on this assignment, David has noticed a large uptick in violent crime in the area.
\nThere has been more property damage to the store, and an increasing rate of robberies, which in turn is
\nhurting customer traffic and sales. The Franchisee has expressed to David, and leaders of the local
\nFranchise Owner\u2019s Association his concern, and his wish to have the store closed overnight, resulting in
\nthe store running a non-24 hour operation. David knows that closing the store overnight will result in a
\nloss of sales, and will certainly impact his job performance, as he will also lose any chance at making his
\nrevenue goals this year.
\nDavid has already partnered with local Police, who in 2 separate meetings with the District Captain, have
\ntold him that they are unable to patrol the area any more than they already are. Budget cuts in 2014
\nmeans less patrol cars on the road, and there are other areas in the jurisdiction that require more
\nimmediate attention. David has raised the issue to his Market President, who is not in favor of closing
\nthe store, however did provide additional camera support, and increased parking lot lighting in the area.
\nThis has not solved the problem, and David is concerned that the crime is out of hand, and will result in
\nbad business, or worse.
\n10 of 26
\nCase I
\nDuring the summer of 2018, I worked as a Budgeting and Planning Specialist for the budget and
\nplanning department of DA company. I decided to spend my summer to develop my analysis
\nand financial skills that I have built during my undergraduate program. DA holding company has
\na high reputation in financial services and hence it was a great opportunity for my career. Since
\n1969, the DA company has been working under as a developer and the controller in financial
\nservices for health, hoteling, foods, education, and many other sectors in Jeddah city. As matter
\nof fact, one of the institution’s main objectives focuses on the development of individuals and
\ncommunities through the provision of training, education and rehabilitation programs that
\nbenefit the members of society and help develop the lifestyle of the society as a whole. From
\nthis perspective, the Group established an integrated management within the main structure of
\nthe Group, which is responsible for the planning and implementation of social development
\nprojects.
\nDuring my training, the public security department received a call about a ladies’ restroom that
\nwas occupied by a man who works in the finance department. In the details, an unidentified
\nman was arrested by the public security department and had no information record in the
\nHuman Resources Department system. When our supervisor and I tried to open the restroom,
\nwe smelled cigarettes from inside. After we have informed the public security department, they
\nopened the cameras to see who was the last person that used the restroom and locked it. The
\ninvestigations revealed that he worked for a company’s employee to perform her duties and
\nuse her authority to attend and leave using her own ID card when we thought she was absent
\nand her office is closeted. He was reported when he needed to use the bathroom and only had
\na ladies’ restroom key, and he admitted that he was working for a lady who was absent to get
\nmoney by doing this.
\n11 of 26
\nCase J
\nEthical dilemmas take form in a number of arenas. Whether an ethical predicament takes place in a
\ncorporate setting, school, field, or the oval office, it is usually the responsibility of a few to research,
\nanalyze, and execute a decision on the behalf of all stakeholders involved. This is a case of one coach\u2019s
\nresponsibility for determining the fate of a student athlete on behalf of the team, athletic department,
\nalumni, and fans.
\nThe summer of 2017 was a transitioning year for Ethical University\u2019s athletic program and the men\u2019s
\ncurling team. The team had a historically strong record of performance including 7 NCAA national
\nChampionships, with the most recent in 2014. The success of the 2014 curling team was followed by a
\nlull in performance and downward trajectory which did not live up to expectation of the athletic
\ndepartment, alumni, or fans. In May of that summer the teams entire coaching staff was either let go or
\nwould not have their contracts renewed for the start of the following season. While the team\u2019s athletic
\nhistorical performance was strong, a record of misdemeanors or arrests due to alcohol or drug related
\nincidents contrasted the program\u2019s athletic success.
\nOffenses from the team ranged from misdemeanors to more serious crimes. The most extreme case was
\nthe murder of one female student athlete by a member of the team on May 20th 2010. The player was
\narrested, detained, and found to have had high levels of alcohol and cocaine in his system when the
\nincident occurred.
\nIn 2013 the athletic administration re-established its drug policy and deployed a 3-fail drug test system.
\nOne failed test, resulting from a random negative urine test or a drug and alcohol related offense
\n(misdemeanor, public intoxication etc.) was responded with an expensive protocol including regularly
\nadministrated drug screenings and mandatory therapy. A second failure resulted in the student athlete\u2019s
\nsuspension while a third failure resulted in dismissal from the athletic department and a revoked
\nscholarship. Three strikes and you\u2019re out. The men\u2019s curling team had kicked off 2 players due to
\nprotocol over the course of 2 years preceding the coaching transition. The new coaches were adopting a
\nprogram with as much success as it had dereliction. The hopes from stakeholders that the program
\ncould be turned around.
\nIn early August, not a month before the start of classes and when student athletes would report back to
\nschool, Ethical University hired a head Coach and two assistant coaches to replace the staff for the 2017-
\n2018 season.
\nHead Coach, Zingler, had his hands full immediately. In July of that summer a team member and starting
\nstandout player was arrested with cocaine drug possession. It was his first incident. Media presence
\naround the story took off. Coach Zingler had to approach the issue without knowing the full extent of
\nathletic policy, team dynamics, or downstream affects. The athletic director recommended to set an
\nexample by kicking the player off the team while team captains independently voted in a unanimous
\ndecision to keep him on the team.
\nAs Coach Zingler, what would you decide?
\n12 of 26
\nCase K
\nFund Me, Inc. is a financial services company that has a niche target market. They offer financial
\nservices for police officers and their families throughout the United States. Because of their
\ntarget market, Fund Me limits their advertising and has strict rules regarding who they
\nadvertise with in order to protect their brand\u2019s safety.
\nIn June, Mark Sellers, the new CMO of Fund Me, decided to revise their brand safety rules in
\norder to allow their advertising firm to have an easier time finding partners they could work
\nwith in order to maximize their reach. When going through the company\u2019s current list of
\npartners he realized that there was currently little to no Spanish speaking programs and
\nwebsites that they bought media through. He knew that at least 20% of active police officers
\nwere Hispanic, not to mention the number of retired police officers and their family members
\nwho might also be eligible to purchase their products that could also be Hispanic.
\nMark spoke other individuals on his team to try and figure out the reasoning behind this deficit.
\nLinda Cramond, a Senior VP for Fund Me, informed Mark that the reason why they restrict
\nadvertising on Spanish speaking programs is because their telephone system does not currently
\nhave a Spanish option. If a potential customer were to call for information, they would not be
\nable to speak to someone with ease. Therefore, Fund Me eliminates these partners to avoid any
\npotential confusion or frustration that could occur. Linda states that while she doesn\u2019t
\nnecessarily agree with the practice, it has been in place since she started working at the
\ncompany 7 years prior. In order begin advertising on these outlets, they would need to first fix
\nthe telephone system which does not seem to be on the table anytime soon as there is
\ncurrently no bandwidth on the IT team to fix the problem and no money to hire a third party or
\nmore employees to work on a solution.
\nMark decided to speak to other employees in different departments as well to gauge their
\nreactions to this potentially huge problem. If they knew about the issue, they reacted the same
\nway as Linda. Not necessarily agreeing with the practice, but also not doing anything to try and
\ncome up with a solution.
\nAfter talking to other employees, he dives into the problem further and finds that there are no
\nSpanish options on their website either, further isolating a large portion of their target market.
\nWhile the reasoning makes sense to Mark, he is outraged at the fact that they are eliminating a
\nwhole group of potential clients because of an issue that is fixable. If consumers were to find
\nout about this, Fund Me might be thrust into the media in a less-than favorable light as well
\nwhich would be difficult to control and would almost certainly damage their brand image. The
\nmarketing department is not even allowed to advertise on any media that has Spanish. This
\nincludes television shows where the majority of dialogue is in English, but some of the
\ncharacters speak Spanish on occasion. This knowledge frustrates Mark because of the potential
\nHispanic customers could have since they are the second largest ethnicity group in their target
\nmarket.
\n13 of 26
\nCase L
\n\u201cHow dare you think about stealing my client after years of mentoring you and vying for your position in
\nthis industry. We will never be working together again,\u201d the president and founder exclaimed as he
\nslammed down the phone. The small world that is the music industry can be a ruthless business that
\nrewards those who have the ability to be forceful both in pursuit of clients as well as personal gains. The
\noffice of SG Media, named after its founder and president, Saul Goldstein, is situated just outside of
\nPhiladelphia and is one of the few music publicity firms that has been able to cement a solid reputation
\nnot in one of the major music industry cities of Los Angeles, New York and Nashville.
\nWith just four employees including Goldstein, SG Media needs to be extremely careful in strategically
\nplanning each year and hold as many clients as possible in order to continue to prosper in this tough
\nindustry. Sarah, who had been there since coming on as intern 8 years ago is working 10 projects single
\nhandedly and she prides herself on providing great service to each client no matter the popularity of the
\nartist. Mark, who has been with SG Media for 5 years also deals with 10 clients. His connections from his
\npast as a performer have allowed him to land some larger clients for the company and he typically pays
\nlittle attention to the smaller clients even though they all pay the same rates for service.
\nGoldstein, an old school manager, makes it a point to meet with his employees once a year to check up
\non how they are feeling in the company and whether they are comfortable in their roles. Throughout
\nthe last 4 one on one meetings, Mark has consistently asked for raises since he feels that his position in
\nthe company is crucial and he is aware of the leverage that he has over Goldstein. If Goldstein were to
\nlose one of his employees at any given time, business would take a serious decline and it would be very
\ndifficult to handle the number of projects while finding another employee to fill the void. Sarah,
\nthroughout her meetings with Goldstein has had productive conversations with him and continuously
\nlets her work show for itself. Goldstein has rewarded her with a raise two times within the last eight
\nyears and Sarah has never asked for one since she feels that Goldstein would treat her differently
\nknowing that not just the work was on her mind but the money as well.
\nOver the course of Mark\u2019s five years he has been forceful enough in his position to make considerably
\nmore than Sarah even though they are both Senior Account Publicists and handle the same number of
\nclients. Goldstein has always been reluctant to give either one of them their raises but knows that
\nwithout either one of them the business will suffer. Goldstein is also getting to the point in the business
\nwhere if he doesn\u2019t expand and get a new segment of clients he most likely will not be able to afford
\nraises for both employees in the future and may have to choose one.
\nThe year-end review is coming up shortly and Sarah is meeting with Goldstein first. Goldstein has
\nallotted enough money to give one of employees a raise. Given that Mark has asked for one every year
\nsince coming onto the team, Goldstein knows that he will ask again. He is hopeful that Sarah will
\ncontinue her pattern so that he will be able to give Mark the raise and keep his business afloat. He is
\nalso confident that Sarah is more willing to accept the fact that he \u201cwould not be able to afford a raise\u201d
\nand she would continue to do her job to the best of her ability.
\nSarah and Goldstein sit down for coffee. After the review of good work Sarah states, \u201cSaul, I think I
\ndeserve to be making more money.\u201d
\n14 of 26
\nCase M
\nI will begin this story from the eyes of a teacher involved at the school which we will refer to as
\nCity School. The case involves 3 students, the victim who we will call V and the 2 attackers who
\nwe will call X and Y. The attackers are accused of assaulting the victim by throwing them over a
\n6-foot fence at a party outside of school hours and off campus. V is a sophomore weighing 95
\nlbs. and 4\u2019 11\u201d, X and Y are both over 6 feet tall, weighing 200 lbs. Other students have reported
\nwitnessing the assault with one student feeling it necessary to report it to me during school
\nhours on campus. \u201cSir, I feel for the safety of V, I need to tell you they were attacked by X and Y
\nover the weekend, who while drunk thought it was funny to throw V over a high fence, V is
\npretty banged up\u201d.
\nThe assault was seen by multiple students at the party but only one student has come forward
\nand spoken to me about it, I have raised the issue with the Vice Principle and Principle who
\nhave informed me that the matter will be dealt with. City School is a prestigious private school
\ncosting parents $50,000 per year. The Principle and Vice Principle have decided not to inform
\nthe board of directors but make the decision on what to do regarding V, X and Y themselves.
\nOne week later the principle informed the leadership team of what had happened and opened
\nthe floor to suggestions. One teacher said \u201cImagine the headlines, your job could be on the
\nline\u201d, another said \u201cWe have to do something to stop this happening again!\u201d I decided to speak
\nto V who was a student in my class and ask how they felt about the situation, they said \u201cwith
\nmy size, this stuff happens a lot more than you think Sir, I just try and avoid those people in the
\nfuture\u201d. I was surprised at the way they brushed it off as okay, but they seemed happy that it
\nwas in the past.
\nWhat should the school do in this situation?
\n15 of 26
\nCase N
\nI work for a National Healthcare IT Recruiting company named Dynamite Healthcare IT as an IT
\nRecruiter. I am one of twelve recruiters on the Recruiting Team. Our job is to fill open IT
\npositions that our Sales Team procures from our clients who are Hospitals and Health systems
\nacross the nation. We fill or place qualified IT consultants in these open positions, and by doing
\nso, recruiters earn an 8% of the weekly amount of money the consultant generates for
\nDynamite Healthcare IT as commission. Due to a recruiter\u2019s ability to earn high commissions
\nthrough many consultant placements, a very competitive and ruthless work environment is
\ncreated. Consultants are also typically disloyal to recruiters and will work with whichever
\nrecruiter brings the candidate the job with the highest hourly rate. Due to this, a major concern
\nfor recruiters are the rules of candidate ownership as they establish which recruiter owns and
\nrepresents each candidate therefore determines which recruiter earns commission off of each
\ncandidate. In the past, when a candidate\u2019s ownership has been disputed on a placement
\nbetween two recruiters and the dispute is brought before the Recruiting Manager and
\nDynamite\u2019s President to decide who receives the commission. Typically, the President and
\nRecruiting Manager have awarded the commission to the recruiter who placed the candidate,
\nwhether or not that recruiter rightfully owned that candidate.
\nIn February of 2017, the candidate ownership rules were very stringent and recruiter\u2019s
\ncandidates were being stolen and placed by other recruiters. To rectify this, the Dynamite\u2019s
\nPresident came up with new candidate ownership rules in March of 2017 which can be broken
\ndown in to three parts. Firstly, a candidate must have a complete profile in Dynamite\u2019s system
\nwhich means the candidate\u2019s profile must include the candidate\u2019s contact information, pay rate
\nand updated resume. Secondly, the recruiter must have an established a relationship with the
\ncandidate through email or phone call conversation. Thirdly, a recruiter has 48 hours after a
\nnew job is entered in Dynamite\u2019s system to reach out to all of their available owned candidates
\nthat are a fit for the position. After the 48 hour time period any other recruiter may reach out
\nto those candidates. The only way for a recruiter to lose ownership of a candidate is if the
\nrecruiter does not reach out to candidate within 48 hours timer period and another recruiter
\nspeaks to the candidate after the 48 hour period and submits the candidate to the job.
\nIn April, Tom spoke to, submitted and placed one of Jon\u2019s candidates within the 48 hour period
\nthereby effectively stealing a candidate from Jon. Jon had completed the candidate\u2019s profile
\nand had a long standing relationship with the consultant. Jon had also reached out to the
\nconsultant within the 48 hour period, but the candidate only responded to Tom. Jon brought
\nthe situation in front of Dynamite\u2019s President and Recruiting Manager to decide the outcome of
\nthe situation. The President and Recruiting Manager have to decide if they will follow
\nprecedent and award the commission to Tom who placed the candidate, but stole the
\nconsultant from Jon, or follow the new guidelines and award the commission to Jon.
\n16 of 26
\nCase O
\nIn a small women\u2019s clothing store in a mall, a store manager vacancy had to be filled. For nearly
\na year, an acting manager and an assistant manager were running the store. They had hired a
\nteam that worked together to make sales goals. A replacement was found with years of
\nexperience at various other stores.
\nChantelle came to the store eager to get started. She liked the store\u2019s product and wanted a
\nnew challenge. The target demographic of this store was a young, professional woman, which
\nwas much different from the teenager crowd of her past stores. Knowing the store had been
\nwithout an official leader for so long, Chantelle was confident her management was what the
\nstore needed.
\nAfter a few months, Chantelle fell into a rhythm at the store. She felt comfortable with the
\nemployees and her responsibilities. She went into the backroom office to check the daily sales
\nother stores in the district and get some work done when the work backed up. She was able to
\ntake extra breaks when needed. Chantelle was enjoying the flexibility she had as store
\nmanager. The flexibility also allowed her to take some liberties with the strict dress code policy.
\nSix months later a manager position needed to be filled. Chantelle hired a former assistant
\nmanager from a high quality jewelry store, Amber. Once the new manager started, a gap
\nstarted to form between the associates and the managers. Amber was able to take extra breaks
\nlike Chantelle and break dress code. The current associates began to complain that Chantelle
\nwas favoring the managers.
\nOne associate said that she was told that she could dress more appropriately to code during a
\nreview even though she was dressed to code. Another was told that, for four-hour shifts, the
\nassociates should not be encouraged to take their legally required 15-minute break. Amber had
\nalso enacted a practice of not scheduling associates instead of letting them go when she was
\nnot meeting goals.
\nThe habit of Chantelle\u2019s that bothered the associates the most was her extra breaks and time in
\nthe office. This time left an associate on the floor by herself, which left the store vulnerable to
\ntheft in the areas now left unmonitored.
\nThe associates did not trust Chantelle and felt she was abusing her managerial power. Chantelle
\nand the other managers felt that there were no issues with the situation.
\n17 of 26
\nCase P
\nIn the summer of 2018, at Camp Highlands in Northern Massachusetts, an assistant director
\nwas being questioned for a controversial decision she had made about a possible gun violence
\nincident.
\nOn Wednesday, July 11th, a child at Camp Highlands spoke the words \u201cI am going to shoot you\u201d
\ntoward another child. A few other campers at the camp, who went on to tell their parents or
\nguardians, overheard the incident. One camper\u2019s mother reached out to the assistant director,
\nTina Brown, at 10 o\u2019clock that same evening explaining what had occurred and that her child
\nwas afraid to attend the camp. Knowing this information the assistant director did not reach
\nout to the police or any type of authority until eight o\u2019clock the next morning.
\nThe camp busses start picking up campers at 8:30 in the morning on camp days. By the time the
\ninformation was dispersed from authorities to transportation the child could have already been
\non the bus endangering campers, counselors, and the driver. Knowing this information the
\nassociate camp director has to make a decision about how to reprimand the assistant director.
\nThe assistant director Tina has been working at the camp for 36 years and has never shown bad
\njudgment before this incident. She was a great director that had the respect from all of the
\nparents that sent their children to the program. At the camp there is no protocol set in place or
\neven training for any of the staff if this incident occurs. Because of this she had no experience
\nor way of knowing how to deal with this violent occurrence.
\nThe child who spoke the controversial words was immediately expelled from the camp for
\npossibly endangering the 300 other children. The police, under protocol, were then sent out to
\nher house to check her mental stability as well as inquiring that there were no guns in the
\nresidence she was residing in.
\nSince the child had been dealt with the associate director has to make a final decision about the
\nassistant director, Tina, in order for the incident to be settled. Many of the parents are
\nexpecting this incident to be resolved and the employee to be reprimanded in order for them to
\nfeel that their children are safe at the camp. If Tina is still involved with the program some of
\nthe parents may not feel that she will protect their children above anything else. This could lead
\nto drop of enrollment within the camp.
\n18 of 26
\nCase Q
\nLike most international students, I found a full-time job during my Optional Practical
\nTraining(OPT) term and expect that my company can support me to get the H1B visa (work visa)
\nand allow me to stay in the US. I am a sales manager of the company GoodChild Inc. and the
\nperformance of the team that I lead is always the first in the company for the past 9 months. If
\nmy team can keep the No.1 performance ranking in the next two months, I will be promoted to
\nthe position of sales director, so my salary and bonus will be twice of current. The most
\nimportant thing is that my company can support me to get the work visa if my team keep the
\nbest performance. The reason that my team can rank first for nine months is because I brought
\nthe biggest customer, RT-Marts group, to the company. RT-Marts group is an international
\nhypermarket chain in China. Because of the language advantage, this biggest customer has
\nalways been responsible for my team\u2019s success.
\nA few days ago, the new general manager of RT-Marts group, Lin, who also is the son of the
\nCEO of RT-Marts group, came to America. I hosted a dinner for him because I wanted to build a
\ngood relationship with the new general manager. During the entire dinner, we talked very well
\nand the atmosphere was good. At the last moment of the dinner, Lin invited me to visit his new
\nlimo. In the car, Lin told me that he expected the price that GoodChild Inc. offered can to
\ndecrease to $800 per units from $900 (the cost of the product is around $350). I told Lin that a
\ndecrease to $800 is almost impossible because our company already offers a $50 discount to
\nRT-Marts, so that may be very hard to do. After some conversation, we finished this dinner.
\nWhen I got back to home, Lin sent a message to me. In this message, Lin promised me if I can
\ndecrease the price, he will personally give me $20 kickback per unit. Their group would consider
\nincreasing their demand to 10,000 units as the last order of this year, and if I can keep the low
\nprice, they will continually give me 3 orders of same demand next year. Every order, totally, I
\ncan get the kickback about $200,000 from them.
\nI am the only manager of my company in China. The top managers of my company know the
\ninformation of China\u2019s market only from me. If I want to, I could convince my boss with fake
\ndata on the Chinese market and tell them the market price of China for this product is $700. If I
\ndid this, the top manager would surely agree with Lin\u2019s expected price.
\nIf I take this order in the low price, I can get the kickback from the RT-Marts, my team can keep
\nthe No.1 performance, my company will support me to get the H1B visa and I may be promoted
\nto the sales director as the rewards. To do this though, I have to lie to my top managers which
\nis violation of professional ethics. It would also damage the company\u2019s interests because we
\nmay have to decrease the price to other customers, that will decrease company\u2019s profit. Even
\nworse, that may result in vicious competition. On the contrary, if I do not accept Lin\u2019s deal, I
\nmay lose the biggest customer, my team may not keep the top performance, and I may need to
\nsay goodbye to my H1B visa and all of my bonus.
\nI am in an ethical dilemma situation, what should I do?
\n19 of 26
\nCase R
\nMany ethical situations arise in the aviation industry. With so much competition going on in the
\nindustry, ethical situations are bound to arise. Airline mechanics have a responsibility like no
\nother. They are licensed and qualified for carrying out aircraft maintenance. They inspect and
\nperform and or supervise maintenance preventive and alteration aircraft and aircraft systems.
\nTwo of the many issues when dealing with aircraft mechanics are rushed jobs and when the
\nmaintenance manual (log book) is filled out incorrectly.
\nMay of 2018 there was a WayUp Airline flight from Raleigh Durham, NC to Tampa, FL. A WayUp
\nAirline mechanic named Rickey Spencer was performing a routine aircraft maintenance
\ncheckup. This particular day Spencer was one out of three mechanics staffed. Spencer was on
\nhis tenth hour on his eight-hour shift, short staffed, no lunch break, hungry, gate calls back to
\nback, overworked and tired. He was in charge of covering every terminal and every call from
\nthe captains at the departure gates. He completed his routine checkup, filled out the
\nmaintenance manual (log book), gave the captain the thumbs up for a working aircraft, and the
\nflight departed to its destination.
\nIt wasn\u2019t until he started working on his next aircraft when he realized he was missing his
\nwrench. After searching high and low, and tracing his steps, it hit him, the wrench was in the
\none of the compartments under the wing of the aircraft. This is a violation of the Federal
\naviation administration (FAA) regulations. Leaving a tool in the aircraft compartments means
\ntwo things, 1. That he signed off in the log book that everything was clear and 2. Potential
\ndanger to the 128 total souls on the aircraft. The wrench could move while inflight causing
\ndamage to the aircraft. Spencer\u2019s mind was running a mile a minute. He wasn\u2019t sure if he should
\nsay something to his manager or let it play out. Spencer has been a mechanic for 15 years, with
\nno violations on his record. After thinking about it, he decided to let it play out.
\nA month or so later, Ted Spark, another Raleigh mechanic and one of Spencer\u2019s
\ncolleagues, found the wrench during another routine check up and recognized it as Spencer\u2019s.
\nWhat should Spark do?
\n20 of 26
\nCase S
\nMy real estate company is currently dealing with an issue concerning four individuals failing to
\npay rent in a timely manner. The lease stated that rent was due the first day of every month for
\ntwelve months starting on June 1, 2018. The individuals paid the deposit on the property
\npromptly, but only two individuals paid a portion of the rent. On August 10, 2018 one individual
\npaid rent for June and July and the other individual paid rent for June. I sent reminders via text
\nmessage on a few occasions, but most of the time my messages were ignored. Also, I sent them
\nmany messages about turning on the electricity for the property and these messages were
\nignored until the middle of August.
\nThese four individuals are college students who needed housing by late August and they told
\nme they will pay rent in cash the last Friday before school started. I agreed to the arrangement
\nand I told them I will tolerate late payments from that point forward. On August 24, 2018 the
\nindividuals went to my property to pay rent, but I was not present at the property. I was
\nworking in my office and they began to bombard me with calls concerning the state of the
\nhouse that I ultimately ignored. They stated that the house smelled like mold, the walls were
\nnot repainted and the house was unlivable. I said via text that we will discuss actions regarding
\ncleaning the house after they paid rent. The individuals refused to pay rent and they are
\ncurrently asking for their deposit and rent money back. I believe they are planning to take legal
\naction.
\n21 of 26
\nCase T
\nParagon Trading Company (PTC), the leading Merchandize Firm owned by foreigners in the
\nRepublic of Letitia was flagged for allegedly selling expired products to the public from its\u2019
\nstorage sites. Based upon an impromptu assessment conducted by the National Institute of
\nCommerce (NIC), PTC was reported to have assembled outdated goods for public consumption
\nby reframing the date of expiration of high consumption commodities and recirculating them
\nfor profit maximization at the expense of the health of the citizens of Letitia.
\nThis assessment information created major concerns and skepticisms about PTC services across
\nthe nation and other similar business institutions. Prior to this findings, PTC was considered one
\nof the safer places to purchase commodities especially perishable goods given the influx and
\nsale of similar commodities from cross borders\u2019 trade by Petty Traders and other informal
\nbusinesses. Many citizens including low income earners traded higher costs for higher quality
\nby transacting with PTC in expectation of acquiring better goods.
\nGiven the situation, citizens became furious, confused, and apprehensive about where and
\nwhat to buy contemplating on the health implication of this kind of illusive behavior. They
\nbegan to speculate that the massive diagnoses of Typhoid and other sicknesses were as the
\nresult of such service.
\nThe nation became divided with regulatory bodies responsible for the inspection of these
\ncommodities before storage, reassuring the public about the efficacy of their systems and
\ncontrols, while the National Health Center (NHC) and other Human Rights Institutions
\ndemanded the conduct of thorough investigation of the matter and further inspection of all
\nother firms. This situation instilled serious pandemonium amongst the citizens about their
\nhealth, and they protested trying to get the government to ban PTC.
\n22 of 26
\nCase U
\nParticipating in the financial industry, advisors are expected to follow a certain set of ethical
\nand legal rules and constraints set out by self-regulatory bodies in an attempt to protect clients
\nfrom potential fraudulent and unethical business practices. Such practices include: participating
\nin client accounts (meaning you share in the profit\/loss of an account), guaranteeing
\nperformance or against loss (capital\/equity markets carry an innate risk to the principal of an
\ninvestment) and altering a prospectus, in any way, to highlight potential advantages.
\nOffice Environment
\nYou work in a highly competitive network office, where your office\u2019s managing partner
\nencourages performance with hefty financial rewards. Your co-workers are all having a
\nphenomenal year, you\u2019ve been slacking a little (you expect if you don\u2019t pick up your
\nperformance soon, your head may be on the chopping blocks) and your personal financial
\nsituation is starting to look a little dire as well. Your office consists of approximately 40 advisors
\nand their staff. You have been notified that the SEC will do a random in-depth audit of an
\nadvisor in your office (business and personal finances alike) \u2013 meaning you have a 1\/40 or 2.5%
\nchance of being selected.
\nScenario
\nYou are a financial advisor at a large firm seeing a new client who wants to talk about
\nretirement\/legacy planning. The client is in his early sixties, has accumulated a great deal of
\nmoney throughout his working years as a c-suite level executive at a large firm. He has opened
\na trust and wants to invest $100M in an account, of which he wants to make you the advisor;
\nmeaning you will continue to advise and manage the account long after his retirement and
\npassing. He mentions that he is particularly concerned with principal protection and the
\nlongevity of his money \u2013 he is leaving it to a charitable organization with little money and
\nfinancial capabilities.
\nThe client mentions that he has seen other advisors who has showed him safe portfolios with
\nan estimated growth rate of 8%. You have prospectuses with similar return rates, and you want
\nto emphasize that your return rates can compete with the other advisors; however, you charge
\na 0.6% fee of total assets, while your competitors charge 1.2%.
\nThe client also mentions that he really like what you\u2019re telling him and will go with you if you
\ncan guarantee principal protection and a 9% return over the first 3 years and 6% thereafter. The
\nclient mentions that if you can guarantee the afore-mentioned, he will personally ensure you
\nreceive a bag of for 1.2% of the total worth of the portfolio at the end of each year, on
\nDecember 1st. If you can\u2019t guarantee however, he will likely go with a competitor.
\n23 of 26
\nCase V
\nRistorante Capo is a quaint Italian fine dining establishment located near King of Prussia,
\nPennsylvania, and has been in business for almost three decades. As an apparent directly
\nsubsequent result, Ristorante Capo features a staff that is relatively long-tenured for such an
\nindustry and thus, offers the two co-owners a great deal of opportunity to allow the business to
\nessentially operate itself on a daily basis without their physical presence in the establishment.
\nThe duo of proprietors had trusted Capo\u2019s serving staff, of which I was an employee at the time,
\nwith taking care of the money for the evening for over a decade I had been told by one of the
\nmore senior staff members, in terms of going through the processes of splitting up the tips,
\npaying the kitchen staff on Saturday nights, then ultimately seeing to it that the one of the
\nbusiness owners received the remaining capital after the shift had concluded. Capo does not
\nhave a computer system for tracking orders and all transactions are written out by the serving
\nstaff by way of pen and paper tickets, though there is a credit card machine in response to
\nfunctionality and efficiency purposes, considering the relatively high menu prices.
\nOne Saturday leading up towards Christmas, I was serving with James and the reservation book
\nconfirmed that it would be a busy shift. As per usual, the owners were not in the restaurant and
\nthe only other person on the dining room floor was a younger bus person that had no
\ninteraction with customer\u2019s checks or means of payment. As James was going through the
\ntickets at the end of the evening, before yielding the tip out to the service staff, the building
\nhad entirely emptied, and it came to my attention that he was throwing out certain table\u2019s
\ntickets, more specifically those that had paid in cash. I quickly connected the figurative dots
\nthat his actions would offer us considerably more cash to pocket and take home for only about
\nfive tough hours of work, not to mention, how could the owner\u2019s ever possibly find out?
\n24 of 26
\nCase W
\nThe company I worked for in during my summer vacations was a customer-oriented small
\nbusiness. Its owners were talented bakers who opened their bakery 20 years ago. Today, the
\nbusiness is thriving, and they have many loyal clients in the town. Many people knows the
\nowners personally, and it is believed that they provide the best products at reasonable prices. I
\nworked at one of their two bakeries in downtown. My job was to sell the cakes and answer
\nphone calls. During the day, there were approximately 15-20 new orders, so my job was to
\nwrite down every client\u2019s name and address, their wishes, and even allergies. My goal was to
\nensure that the cakes produced at the bakery meet the requirements of the most demanding
\ncustomers.
\nAfter the brief training that took several days, I was allowed to take orders by myself. I did my
\njob well and believed that the clients were satisfied. Some of them even left positive comments
\non the bakery\u2019s Facebook page, emphasizing the high quality of service. However, everything
\nchanged one day after I took order from Mrs. X. The lady ordered a birthday cake and told me
\nthat she was allergic to peanuts. I wrote it down and handed the order to the person who was
\nsupposed to make this cake. The order was delivered the next day, but Mrs. X called the owner
\nin the evening saying that she had a serious allergic reaction and that the cake probably
\ncontained some peanuts.
\nWhen I came to work the next day, the owner was there, and he wanted to talk to me about
\nwhat happened to Mrs. X. I told him that I was informed about the client\u2019s condition and
\ncommunicated this to the cook. I suggested to check the note I handed to her. However, the
\ncook argued that she threw the note away when the cake was ready and claimed that it did not
\ncontain any information about the client\u2019s allergy. She stressed that she had much experience
\nas she had worked at the bakery for almost five years and noted that it was probably my
\nmistake. It was apparently her word against mine. I knew that the owner would probably
\nsupport her since they knew each other for years. However, I could not even imagine that his
\nreaction would be so unexpected.
\n25 of 26
\nCase X
\nThe Kimberly Company is a production firm that expects its managers at all levels to maintain a
\nhigh degree of ethical standards. These expectations are laid out in the employee handbook
\nwith the intent of providing worthy examples for junior employees to emulate, and removing
\nthe possibility for perceived conflicts of interests to arise.
\nSenior management became aware of a married department supervisor maintaining an affair
\nwith a junior employee in a section of a client company with which Kimberly conducts regular
\nbusiness. The department supervisor was removed from position, as per the employee
\nhandbook, however no replacement was named and the section was forced to operate for a
\ntime without a supervisor.
\nThe implications of this were especially dire since many employees in the section had annual
\nreviews due shortly that required a supervisor\u2019s comments and signature. If the reviews were
\nnot submitted into the HR system, or were submitted without comments and signature, they
\nwould be rejected and the employee\u2019s career timeline would be adversely affected. Employees
\nstruggled trying to keep their careers on track without resorting to manipulating the HR system.
\n26 of 26
\nCase Y
\nThe company in this case is a construction company that specializes in technology integration
\nfor commercial clients, including many fortune 500 companies. The construction firm for this
\ncase will be called XY Construction. It is typical that many jobs involve the disposal of non-state
\nof the art, which is to say 4 or 5 year old, technology equipment such as computers and
\ncomputer monitors, into dumpsters. The policy of the company is that no one may pick out of
\nthe dumpsters any of the computers and anyone in violation will be terminated when it is
\nconfirmed that there was theft. Additionally some clients require in their contracts that same
\npolicy.
\nDuring a birthday party for the one year old daughter of one of XY\u2019s site supervisors, many
\nmembers of XY\u2019s management attended (which is not unusual given the culture of the
\ncompany). One of XY\u2019s executives noticed a computer in the site supervisor\u2019s house which had
\nlettering on the back which had the initials of a recent client, of which the supervisor worked at.
\nThe next work day the supervisor was called into the executive\u2019s office. Where they discussed
\nwhat the executive had noticed at the birthday party. The supervisor explained that the writing
\non the back of the computer was actually the initials of his brother in law, which happened to
\nbe the same as the recent client. The client did not specify in the contract that their equipment
\nshould exclusively be disposed of. Also, the supervisor who has been with XY since its founding
\n17 years ago has been documented to be misleading\/lying in his second year working for XY.
\nOther than that the supervisor has been a model employee who is well respected and has been
\npromoted multiple times.
\nXY\u2019s executive is skeptical of his supervisor\u2019s explanation but is reluctant to ask for the client\u2019s
\nassistance for investigating due to the fact that he does not want to jeopardize the relationship.
\nThis is because the initial work has led to further work, which has also become more profitable.
\nWhat should the executive do?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
1 of 26 MGT 552 \u2022 Stakeholder Theory and Social Responsibility \u2022 Weidner \u201cEthics Grand Rounds\u201d case ranking 1. I received cases from 25 of 26 class members by this morning\u2013 thanks! Each case has an alphabetical code (A through Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-427362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/427362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=427362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/427362\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=427362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=427362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=427362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}