Easy

2

Case Study #1

2

Case Study #1

UNIVERSITY

Business Ethics

Professor

Case Study

STUDENT DATA:

Name:

E-mail:

Phone:

Semester:

Date:

Summary of Saudi Sand

Joe’s position as sales manager for Granite Rock & Sand was in jeopardy. His unit was the low performer for seven consecutive quarters. Joe’s supervisor, Ray, told Joe that if his unit did not pull out of last place in the next quarter, Joe would lose his job. Joe and his wife just purchased their first home and had mortgage payments of $2100 per month. If he lost his job, they would lose their home. Joe got busy looking for salespeople that would improve his unit’s performance. Mary was the last applicant he interviewed. She told Joe that she was laid off by a competitor, Quartz Rock. Joe was not impressed with her. Just before she left the meeting, she pulled a piece of paper out of her briefcase.

She handed the paper to Joe and he saw it had the official seal of the government of Saudi Arabia.

Mary explained that before she left Quartz they were trying to find unique markets for their sand.

They learned that Saudi desalinization plants needed certain sand that was not available in Saudi Arabia. Quartz was the only firm that had this competitive intelligence. Mary told Joe that she could make the deal with the Saudis if he would hire her. She left the office and told Joe to think it over.

Ethical Dilemma(s):

There is an ethical dilemma in this case. The ethical dilemma is whether Joe should hire Mary for his own gain, despite the fact that Mary is not someone he wants on his staff. Compounding the dilemma is the fact that Mary possessed competitive intellectual property from her former employer. He did not know if her possession of the document was hers to have, or whether she had stolen it from her employer. If he used the information, he would save his job, and save his home.

Harm(s) & Justification:

In this case there are several points to examine:

· Hiring Mary simply for the purpose of improving his position and his unit’s position, could jeopardize Joe’s entire company if the information about the Saudi sand were to be made known. This harm is not justifiable.

· Knowing that hiring Mary under these circumstances is not good judgment on his part, the future unity of his unit is at stake. But if he saves his job, he could work through that problem.

Joe could justify this harm.

· Despite all the circumstances surrounding the problem, Joe would save his home. Even if what he did was unethical, he would save his home and his job. This harm could be justifiable.

· If Mary has stolen the property from her former employer, her former employer is definitely in harm’s way. This harm is not justifiable.

· Once again, if Mary has stolen the memo, she places herself in harm’s way for criminal prosecution. However, depending on her perspective of the situation, her possession of the stolen memo may be justifiable to her. She has definitely already considered to be justifiable the risk of being prosecuted for stealing the memo.

· If Joe hires Mary and uses the memo, he becomes complicit in the crime. If he chooses to do so, he considers the possible harm justifiable to save his home and his job.

· There is potential harm to the Saudi government. If Joe goes forward with procuring the sand for the Saudi desalinization plants, and it later becomes known how he secured that contract under fraudulent conditions, the contract would be voided and could turn into an international commerce incident. The harm to Joe’s company, to the United States, and to Saudi Arabia is unjustifiable.

Assumption(s):

The assumptions in this case are as follows:

· Assume as fact that Joe’s company is large enough to have an office of General Counsel, and that within the office of General Counsel there is an ethics officer.

· 3

· Assume as fact that the letter Mary has shown to Joe is authentic.

· Assume as fact that Mary has told the truth about her being laid off with her former employer.

· Do not assume that Mary is conducting strategic competitive sabotage on the part of her current employer from which she has not actually been laid off.

· Assume as fact that the threat of Joe losing his job will be carried out if the performance of his unit does not improve.

· Assume as fact that Joe’s wife does not have a job with sufficient income to keep the house if Joe loses his job.

Alternative Courses of Action (ACAs):

There are several courses of potential action for Joe int his case.

· Joe should report to his supervisor the conversation with Mary and detach himself from the situation.

· Joe should call Mary’s former employer and report her to them for her possession of the

Saudi letter.

· Joe should ignore what Mary has told him and seek other sources for improving his business.

· Joe should hire Mary and use the information she gave him to secure the contract with the

Saudi government, thus securing his job.

· Joe should report to his supervisor the conversation with Mary and remain involved in the situation to ensure that the possibility of an international incident is avoided.

4

Final Course of Action:

Of all the options, I believe that Joe should report to his supervisor the conversation with Mary and ensure that the incident is reported to the company’s General Counsel and ethics officer.

Remaining connected with the situation permits Joe to demonstrate his integrity and responsibility and loyalty to the company. It also ensures that his supervisor does not do anything unethical with the information that Joe has communicated. Taking this course of action may not save his job, but will demonstrate that his ethics are above reproach. He should evidence to his supervisor all of his intended actions to improve income, and regularly report to his supervisor how things are going. Doing so will strengthen the lines of communication between the two of them, and even if sales do not improve drastically, at least his supervisor will know that he has worked hard to achieve the goal. The bottom line is that Joe has taken the ethical high road, and though his job is still in jeopardy, if he loses his job, the harm is justifiable. If he must seek new employment, explaining the circumstances of losing his last job to a future employer will likely ensure that he is hired due to his honesty and integrity.

Insights Gained through this case:

Through reviewing this case I see….. (LIST YOUR INSIGHTS)