Ethics Case Study Sample

1. Goldman is dominated by a “Darwinian, survival for the fittest mentality. What does that mean?
Because of the hefty payments and bonuses the company’s partners and executives were receiving, every employee envied to become a partner. The odds were long since each time they opened the books to admit a new class, only 1 of 330 Goldman employees made the cut. This resulted to clawing fights inside Goldman.
Darwinian mentality can be justified in that it helps to weed out the weaker workforce and would ensure selection and reproduction of a stronger generation of workers with the best qualities. It is more likely to announce a massive public announcement. This is because with the limited vacancies to become a partner and with a very big population competing for those posts, a massive announcement would be fair and appropriate to weed out the weak candidates. This will ensure the best candidate fit for the post is selected.
2. Describe the advantages of a “behavioural interview.” If you were in charge of hiring for a company seeking employees who flourish in a survival-of-the-fittest environment, what kind of question might you ask in a behavioural interview? Why?
Behavioural interview consists of a series of open-ended questions. Behavioural interviews help the interviewer to choose the right applicant, in the right position at the right time. The question to ask in a survival for the fittest behavioural interview would be how the individual copes in a competitive environment. This would help me to understand what he would consider, how to cope with the pressure, and the result. Additionally, this will help in outlining the actual character of the interviewee.
3. One contributor to the New York Times comments section writes, “There are sure to be lots of pointed, angry posts about how unfair it is that these guys make so much money etc. However, if we are honest, there is a fair amount of envy and pure remorse that we were not bright enough to go down that path! And these guys are very bright.”
How could these comments be construed to explain why high wages and big bonuses are used by Goldman to motivate its workers? What is it that makes big money (or the possibility of big money) function as a powerful motivator to encourage employees to work hard and well? Ethically, how can this use of big money be justified?
Big wages and bonuses are used by Goldman to motivate workers because every workers envy is attain executive and partner positions whose sole reason is to earn big money. Big money is a powerful motivator because it is a universal reward and is simple to use. The use of big money can be justified in that it is a universal reward. The employer does not have to worry about what gift to buy the employee. Gifts may mean so many things to different people. Furthermore, big money is simple to use. When financial bonuses are given to employees, the employer knows what exactly the bonus is worth. This helps when taking a tax deduction for the amount you give to the employee.
4. One difference between offering an employee a wage increase and offering a bonus is that the latter does not come automatically the next year. The employee has to earn it from scratch all over again.
Managers awarded their best employer with bonuses to ensure competition among the workers to be the best to earn that bonus since it was awarded annually. Furthermore, this ensured growth in business because of hard work by all the workers. According to utilitarianism theory that supports achieving the best in many individuals, employees should not be paid through bonus system as this would yield to unhealthy competition among the workers and the executives would be paid very high salaries by virtue of their positions leaving poor salaries for the employees.
5. Given the kind of work that is done at Goldman—bringing wealthy people and powerful organizations together to make deals—why might party aptitude (the ability to mix socially after hours) be considered when deciding who does and who doesn’t make partner at Goldman? How could that decision be justified ethically? How could it be criticized ethically?
Party aptitude can be considered to determine who makes partner at Goldman since as an organization Goldman depends on making deals with wealthy people. Social skills are important in convincing individuals or organizations to do business with Goldman. Employees with poor social skills have a lesser chance of making deals with wealthy organizations.
6. Make the case that in theoretical terms, managers at Goldman have an ethical responsibility to institute the process of rank and yank.
According to the deontology theory, the most essential aspects of our lives are presided over by certain permanent ethical rules. In other words, the managers may do the right thing even if the consequences of that action may not be good. Ranking the employees against each other will help the management to determine fairly the employee deserving the partner position. Ranking will improve the workers performance, as no worker will want to rank among the last. This will result to an increase in business profits. Yanking will help in eliminating the weak workforce thus helping the management in tying the loose ends.