2 Solved Questions with Answers
-
2017
11. You are the head of the Human Resources department of an organization. One day one of the workers died on duty. His family was demanding compensation. However, the company denied compensation because it was revealed in investigation that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The workers of the company went on to strike demanding compensation for the family of the deceased. The Chairman of the management board has asked for your recommendation.
What recommendation would you provide to the management?
Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the recommendation. (2017)Option 1: Let the law take its own course. As the worker was drunk during duty, the company cannot be held responsible for his death.
This may sound right as the worker was bound to follow rules at the place of work. However, the strike by the remaining workers could affect the image and productivity of the company. No matter the outcome, the trust between workers and the management would be lost.
Option 2: Recommend the company to offer compensation.
But this would set a bad precedent among the management as well as the workers. To offer compensation would mean to let down the safety regulations of the company. The management may also not appreciate the payment as they were not liable for compensation due to negligence showed by the worker.
Option 3: Recommend the management to offer alternative employment to the kin of the deceased. Push the management to adopt stricter prevention and safety measures.
The third option is suitable as it would be better to bring the situation under control. The workers could be placated if the kin of the deceased would be offered a job. And also the company may prefer to not lose image and
man days due to the strike. -
2017
12. You are the manager of a spare parts company A and you have to negotiate a deal with the manager of a large manufacturing company B. The deal is highly competitive and sealing the deal is critical for your company. The deal is being worked out over a dinner. After dinner the manager of manufacturing company B offered to drop you to the hotel in his car. On the way to hotel he happens to hit motorcycle injuring the motorcyclist badly. You know the manager was driving fast and thus lost control. The law enforcement officer comes to investigate the issue and you are the sole eyewitness to it. Knowing the strict laws pertaining to road accidents you are aware that your honest account of the incident would lead to the prosecution of the manager and as a consequence the deal is likely to be jeopardised, which is of immense importance to your company.
In the above case
The stakeholders involved are:- Manager of company A that is me and the company itself
- Manager of company B
- The motorcyclist
In the given situation following ethical dilemmas arise:-
Personal cost ethical dilemma: If I give an honest account of incidents to the investigating authorities, the critical deal will be lost for my company.
Moral dilemma: If I do not report the incident, fearing the loss of deal, the defaulter will not be brought to the book and motorcyclist will not be assured justice, who is critically injured. My conscience would prick me in the long term for not taking the right action in pursuance of selfish interests.
Legal dilemma: Not giving the correct account of accident would also be legally wrong since an accident has taken place critically injuring a person.
Response to the situation
The situation involves
life of a person who has been critically injured and my personal interests regarding the deal, being at stake. There is also a legal dimension to it as the Manager of other company was over speeding that led to the accident.In this situation, I would cooperate with the investigating agency, giving the correct details of the accident and let
law take its own course. This would affect the deal thereby affecting the interests of company but it would be unethical, illegal and immoral on my part to continue a deal with the person implicated for an accident for negligent driving and shield him from authorities, moreover, it would be wrong for the motorcyclist to be denied justice, who is critically injured despite being innocent.The growth of
company can be ensured along with adhering to moral principles of truth, justice and moral uprightness, which need to be protected.
