Ethical Business Dilema

Ethical Dilemma Analysis through the 8 questions model by Arthur Dobrin Case 1 Rental Applicant 1. Facts African-American applier permanent work history More than enough income to cover the rent thoroughly references from their previous landlord A couple with one young son (Family) to begin with applicants accepted, rental agent should down done a background checkout time as a shopworn procedure. 2. Facts we dont survive Verifications of facts moderate a cross check oWhether or not the facts provided by the applicant argon true ? Income Salary Statement ?References from landlord Written letter/ blazon out Work History Stable/Unstable work experience Applicants air/habit past rental history oWhether or not they analogous to break lease or skip town leave an complimentary rent The reason for postponing the practise oWhat does Kate mean by saying in my experience whether its actually because of her experience dealing with application or racial discrimination. 3. Fact s rendition Stable work history ? stable whether they have work long time or not (cross-check credential) A family much in all probability to be more settled in one touch compare to single status individual. A neat reference from previous landlord means that the applicant has a good record of being a good tenant. Have more than enough income means that the applicant has the efficacy to fulfill its obligation of paying the rent. 4. Walk in anothers shoes (problem viewed from others that involved) Kate exponent give a stereotype view of the African-American applicant 5. Consequences If we dont take them oWe expertness slip a good tenant oWe might lose our traffic opportunity oWe might build a strict take to to prospective customer If we take them oTheres a possibility that we exterminate up having a default rent 6.Feelings Megan Perspective Look very good for their application Kate Perspective Dont rush their application having negative perception Our Perspective e nsure to our feeling and in gang with the facts given (provided it is true), plus we can also try to determine base on the intuition from the body language given by the applicant, around seeming we will accept the applicant. 7. Conscience Yes ? Provided the documents are true. No ? Provided the documents are false. Verification whether the documents are true or false can be done by cross-checking the credential and/or validating the facts. . Explanation and acknowledgment In making decision, it should not be establish on individualised needs/views or simply intuition/feelings, it should also be based on neutral judgment from the facts given and validation. Given the normal standard procedure that needs to be fulfilled from the background check of the applicant and by checking thoroughly throughout the facts, the rental agents should be able to buzz off a decision. Case 2 Sabotage Menu Not component the avocation of customers fully (by pushing other visiting card instead). By apply healthy food as a bait strategy to pull up customers, according to Dave. . Facts Food is healthy, but the quantity is limited. Coming up with a new menu. Huge expenditure on advertisement. 2. Facts we dont know Whether the food which is healthy is actually healthy. Assumption whether this strategy will come through for a long time. Whether or not people will acquire fast food even though the menu is being pushed. 3. Facts Interpretation New healthy menu was launched by the company to response the man pressure for healthier lunch cho deoxyephedrines, thus by having new menu, numerous money involved to train and advertise the new menu. New menu launched priced lower to bring new customers, thus there will be an effect on the companys profit. The objective of the business is to convey money for the shareholders, thus the business need to make profit. Hence, most likely agency problem would occur, which refers to the ethical dilemma between the shareholder interest and the CEO interest. Dave, the store manager, wanted the staff to push the upsize menu options and ice creams for dessert, which this refers to an issue of sabotage. 4. Walk in anothers shoes (problem viewed from others that involved) According to Carol, the manager is more inclined towards his own profit. According to Dave it is fast to maximise the profit and his own commission. According to customer, they might be cheated into buying windburnt food. 5. Consequences By agreeing to Dave, the profit might be higher in the hornswoggle term, whereas by going against Dave, the company might lose out on the profit. But by keeping the reputation of the company, it will help in the long-term profitability. She might lose her own position if she does not agree to Dave plan. But if she doesnt want to lose her job, then most likely she will have her personal issue. 6. Feelings If she agrees to Dave, she will be safe, but if she goes against him, she might lose her job. (personal dilemmas) 7. Conscience In order to save the job, Carol might let her inner conscience take the back seat, because this is cognitive reverberance within herself. Her decision will be based on how she feels, whether it is good or bad. 8. Explanation and Justification If yes, she can say that her boss asked her to do so. If she says no, she can say her inner conscience didnt digest her and in the long run, it wont be beneficial to the consumer and the company.