Case 13.2 How Safe is Safe?
1. As a company, would you describe PPI as having an identifiable philosophy of moral values? How do its policies contribute to this philosophy?
I would say that PPI has an identifiable philosophy of moral values. The company is highly concerned with the safe working environment for its employees and contributes this philosophy by inviting external audits every year to identify potential safety problems and then addressing theses unsafety issues.
2. Which ethical perspective best describe PPI's approach to safety issues? Would you say PPI takes a utilitarian-, duty-, or virtue-based approach?
I think the teleological perspective, best describe PPI's approach to safety issue because the outcomes or results of these safety checks are that the company help ensure employees' safety. I can see that PPI takes a utilitarianism approach, as the influence of improving safety is good for most employees.
3. Regarding safety issues, how does management see its responsibilities towards its employees? How do the attorneys see their responsibility toward PPI?
The management sees itself responsible for providing the safest environment for its workers. The attorneys, however, put the company's information security first, and see themselves responsible for reducing the company's potential of being accused.
4. Why does it appear that the ethics of PPI and its attorneys are in conflict?
Because the management and the attorneys of PPI focus on different values. The management takes the safety of its employees first and thus is willing to invite outside supervision because it can provide more professional and objective advice. The management is also proud to make the company a leader, an example among other manufactories. The attorneys' value focuses more on the legal side of the company's actions. They are against the company's approach to safety problems because they think such high transparency of safety information will leave potential risks for the future.
Case 15.2 Lack of Inclusion & Credibility
1. What advancement barriers is Lori encountering?
Lori's coworkers and supervisor do not respect her nor recognize her suggestions. Therefore Lori cannot get the opportunities for professional advancement.
2. What should Lori's male coworkers have done when Lori entered the room?
Loris' male coworkers should have said hi to Lori and include her in their conversation when Lori entered the room.
3. How should Len have behaved to provide a role model for Lori's male colleagues? What should Len have said after Ian made the same recommendations that Lori did?
Len should have first, include Lori in the conversation when he entered the room and second, responded to Lori's suggestion at the beginning of the meeting. Len should have pointed out that it was Lori who originally proposed the idea.
4. What could the organization do to foster the effectiveness of all four managers?
From the behaviours of the male leaders, we can see that they have a strong bias and indifference towards female leaders. Therefore, to change the current situation of the four managers, the organization has a long way to go.
At the interpersonal level, the organization can help the three male managers recognize their misbehaviours and apologize to Lori. One thing to be noticed is that it is not just for the one meeting, it is difficult but also crucial to change the three male managers' prejudice towards women in the long term. They should also establish a more formal, equal meeting rules for members to propose and discuss, and therefore increase the efficiency of the team meeting. They could also, in the early phase, invite outside experts to help with the team building.
At the organizational level, the company should also foster an inclusive, respectful environment, provide women with more sponsorship and mentorship opportunities, and increase the number of women in higher management positions.