Misreading Issues Ethics

Case 6c : Getting in, getting on…? misreading issues related to access and ethics in a small scale enterprise Teresa Smallbone, Oxford Brookes University Lefteris was a Greek student studying for a one year master's degree in International Management a t a U K university. Now halfway through his course he was thinking about possible dissertation topics. In his hometown in Greece, Lefteris’ uncle had a factory that made patio doors and window frames for both the domestic and export markets. Lefteris was very friendly with his uncle and had worked in the accounts and marketing sections at the factory during holidays from university. Through this work, he had got to know some of the managers who had always been very supportive and kind to him. Aware of the problems associated with gaining access to organisations to collect primary data, Lefteris decided to base his dissertation on a case study of his uncle’s company. On the basis of the modules he had studied, Lefteris had become particularly interested in the future enlargement of the European Union and the challenges this was likely to create for Greek companies and wondered whether he could link this to a dissertation on his uncle’s company. Since commencing his studies, he had come to reali se that his uncle’s company was fac ing major competitive challenges, which had to be overcome, if it were to survive. He wondered whether this might be possible by better marketing or entering into some form of strategic alliance with either a Greek or foreign company. Eventually he thought of a working title for his dissertation, which he could refine later: ‘Can the use of marketing or strategic alliances help SME’s survive the competitive challenges of greater European Union (EU) integration and enlargement? A case study of a Greek SME ’. Lefteris realised that he had to start his case study research with clear research questions. After discussion with his tutor he felt that the main issue he was trying to clarify at this stage was the extent to which his uncle’s company was planning its marketing strategies, and how these were integrated into the company’s corporate plan. These findings could subsequently be linked to EU enlargement. Fired up by his research methods course, Lefteris was keen to use some of the new research techniques he had learnt about. He had enjoyed the class on participant observation and felt, as he had excellent access, it would be a good idea to use this technique alongside a survey of the employees, and some in-depth inte rviews with the managers he knew. Lefteris decided to return to Greece for the Easter vacation to start his primary research with his employee survey and the first of his observations, completing the rest of his data collection at the start of the Summer vacation. On arrival in Greece, Lefteris’ uncle was happy to grant him access to the company and instructed all his managers to co -operate with him. To Lefteris’ surprise, although his uncle asked him detailed questions about what he had learned about bus iness and marketing planning, he did not appear particularly interested in the research topic. However his uncle did insist that he was told the results of the research before it was written up, arguing that he did not want his company to appear foolish in the eyes of the UK academic and business community. Lefteris promised to do this. Lefteris decided to start with his employee survey, as he thought it would take a long time to analyse and write up. He knew from his Research Methods course that being int erviewed by the owner’s nephew could cause the employees psychological stress. He therefore decided to give out ‘anonymous ’ self -completion questionnaires to all the employees and ask them to put answered questionnaires in an empty box, which he would co llect later. However, in order to ensure that he could send a follow up letter and questionnaire to those who did not respond, Lefteris decided to number each questionnaire discreetly. The questionnaire asked employees for personal details such as age, s ex, and length of service with the company and then explored the respondents' attitudes to greater competition and the extent to which in their view it could be a threat. Finally, it asked questions about a range of measures that might help improve the com pany’s ability to meet competition. Lefteris had drawn on his reading of the academic literature for these. They ranged from quality circles and team working to better internal communications and increased expenditure on advertising. While waiting for th e completed questionnaires to be returned, Lefteris started his first observation in the marketing section. Although he had worked there before, people no longer seemed particularly friendly, and tended to stop talking when he walked into a room. This mad e observation of meetings and work conversations extremely difficult. A few days’ later, Lefteris’ uncle called him into his office. He told his nephew that although he fully supported his research efforts, in the real world business school theories are a waste of time and never got him anywhere. He went on to say that the production manager had warned him that the survey was upsetting some of the employees, who saw it as evidence that the company was in difficulties. Some of them were now asking difficult questions and requesting consultation about the future. His uncle hoped that the survey might reveal who these agitators were and he was looking forward to seeing the results, as promised. Unfortunately, the employees were right. The accounts for the fi rst quarter of the year released a few days later confirmed the trend of a dramatic fall in sales. In a subsequent meeting, Lefteris’ uncle blamed this on the marketing section. He told Lefteris that he ‘owed it to the rest of the family ’ to find out wh at was really going on in the marketing section and to report to him as soon as possible on the results of his research there. Questions 1 What are the key ethical issues raised in this case study? 2 Should Lefteris continue with his research? 3 With hind sight, how could Lefteris have designed his research to avoid some of the ethical issues outlined above?