Discuss about the Business Ethics for Case Studies and Selected Readings.
In the A7D Affair, the whole scene revolves around the four-disk brake designing and its defect. The designing of the four-rotor 106 pound brake promised by the B.F. Goodrich Company for LTV. The charge came under the most experienced and able engineer, named, John Warren. He is known for his engineering skills (Tannsjo, 2008).
Moving on to the next step, the testing of the brake was to take place and it was assigned to the newcomer Searle Lawson. He does not have too much experience but carries all the competencies needed for the same job. During testing, he came across, that the brake produces too much heat and broke down into parts. This led to the decision that the designing of the product does not take place effectively leading to the most negative outcomes. The whole thing was communicated to the project manager named Robert Sink. But, nothing, positive came out, and it makes the person in great trouble and was forced to develop the false reports claiming about the successful testing and that got approved further. Ralph Gretzinger also became proactive and supported Lawson to not to be a part of this scam (Shaw, 2010).
Russell Line, the senior executive in the company, even after knowing all the pertinent facts does not take any stringent steps and was very much comfortable with the falsifications to be carried upon. In the future point of time, the committee does not come to any effective decision. Russell Line was promoted to the higher position, and became Production Superintendant and his position was taken by Robert Sink. Ralph Gretzinger and Searle Lawson resigned from their respective positions. Ralph became the newspaper reporter, and Searle Lawson acquired the position of engineer for the LTV and handed over with the A7D project.
The whole situation that took place was not a mistake rather it was planned and knowingly done under the supervision of the key authorities of the company. After gaining all the insights about the product quality and safety, nothing effective took place. At the end, this cost too much to the company as they were to produce the five-disk brake and that too by not taking compensation for the same.
In the company, the people working were very much unethical and immoral. They do not make use of the ethical moves and it turns up highly difficult and complex also. The conditions turn out to be totally varying and create trouble on the part of the company. At this point, it can be very well understood that the part that goes bad was groupthink and destructive obedience.
In B.F. Goodrich Company, one cannot see groupthink given too much of importance and concern. B. F. Goodrich, a highly regarded US manufacturer of high technology products, with intent and conscious, submitted a dangerous aircraft braking system to the U.S. Air Force for in-flight testing. This is the most unbelievable part and it comes out due to involvement from the part of the insiders within the company (Jennings, 2011).
Destructive obedience can also be very well seen that the obedience from the part of the subordinates was moving towards massive destruction and damage. In the case, it can be very much clear that the obedience from the part of the subordinates was not right enough and does not do anything good for the company as well as for the employees.
Ideas of Immanuel Kant
In the words of Kant, the area to be taken into account is that the duty and reason are to be taken together. Along with this, it is effectively stated that the intentions
behind an act said to be more of significant than the calculations of the aftermaths to be received. The theory proposed was Deontological Theory. As per this theory, the person is held liable for the duty to carry upon any of the task (Waluchow, 2003).
This appears to be an approach to ethics that concentrates on the correctness or inappropriateness pertaining to the actions performed. It hardly looks upon the effects that come out after action take place. The ultimate aim is to look upon the intentions behind before judging the resultants from the same (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2012).
This particular theory clearly states that the behavior of B. F. Goodrich in the A7D Affair was not ethical. It can also be understood in a way that the intentions behind were not at all clean and all that goes on was purely planned as well. This can be very well understood that the key authorities at the business level get involved in this scam and due to their wrong intentions consequences come out to be pungent in its nature. Lack of integrity and honesty can also be very well seen and discovered in this particular case (Kant, 2013)..
Ferrell, C.O., Fraedrich, J. & Ferrell, L. (2012). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. 9th ed. Natorp Boulevard, Mason: Cengage Learning.
Jennings, M. (2011). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. 7th ed. Natorp Boulevard, Mason: Cengage Learning.
Kant, I. (2013). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Greenwich Street: Simon and Schuster.
Shaw, H.W. (2010). Business Ethics. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Tannsjo, T. (2008). Understanding Ethics. George Square: Edinburgh University Press.
Waluchow, W.J. (2003). The Dimensions of Ethics: An Introduction to Ethical Theory. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.