Issue 1 - Ethics and Legal Environment 2
Issue 2 - Organizational Environment 4
Issue 3 - Critical Thinking 7
Issue 4 – Business Associations and Torts 8
Issue 1 - Ethics and Legal Environment
As an agent of her employer, Monique has legal obligations of obedience, loyalty, accounting and performance to her principal. The duty of loyalty involves a fiduciary obligation where the agent is required to serve one principal at a time and shun from conflicts of interest, inform the principal about any material information, and keeping away from actions that would adversely affect the interest of the principal (Hartigan, 2014:272). Additionally, Monique has the duty of obedience towards her principal. The obligation involves following all reasonable and lawful instructions given by the principals.
Therefore, the agent should evaluate principal’s instructions to establish whether they make sense and are lawful. Under this obligation, an agent need not carry out instructions which she holds to be unreasonable and illegal. Another agent’s obligation towards the principal is the duty of accounting where an agent should hand over documents showing how they have used the money and other resources provided by the principal. Thus, an agent is supposed to keep accounting records that the principal can access. Finally is the duty of performance, which entails use of reasonable judgment and skill of agents as they carry out their work. They must meet the standards of performance expected of people in their line of specialization (273).
In determining what to do, Monique needs to use the four-question framework to assess the current dilemma she is facing. According to Badaracco (1992:75), one should answer the following four questions when faced with an ethical dilemma:
Which option will result in most good and least harm?
Which courses of action will best benefit the rights of others, including shareholders?
What plan one is comfortable with because of its consistency with fundamental values and commitments?
4. Which option is reasonable in today’s world?
Hence, Monique should first ask herself about the consequences of her actions. She should consider what will happen if she changes the figures of animals that died during the Zika vaccines trials. For example, the company may be permitted to continue with the trials on human beings which will lead to high rates of death. However, if she declines to do so, Food and Drug Administration will not approve the vaccine and, therefore, her employer will be required to continue with research to come up with a more efficient vaccine. The second question that Monique should ask herself is whether her choice of action respects the rights of others in regard to life, liberty, and happiness (Christensen & Boneck 2010:54). The choices she makes should not violate other people’s rights such as respect, fairness, and safety of those who will be affected by her decision.
Even though it can be difficult to identify the people who will be negatively affected in some situations, in this case, it is clear that the shareholders of the company and people who will receive the vaccine will be directly affected. The third question deals with conscience and value. Monique should consider whether she will be at peace with herself if she changes the figures as asked by her boss. She needs to think about the long-term outcomes of her decision on her character and the reputation of the company (Chartered Quality Institute, 2009). The last question is whether the action chosen is feasible in the current environment. The morality of a course of action that Monique chooses should be practical.
According to Duty of obedience, Monique does not have an obligation to the principal to change the figures as requested by her boss because if she does so, she will have violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Hartigan, 2014:273). Thus, it is illegal to provide wrongful information to the public about the result of Trial II of Zika vaccine. Additionally, when the action is assessed using Badaracco’s frames, it proves to be unethical because the consequences are harmful to a greater number of people than those who will benefit from it. Changing the figures might lead the company to be allowed to carry out trials on human beings which will result in a high number of death as it has happened with animals. Thus, the action will have violated the rights of those who will participate in the experiments. Monique will live with the feeling of guilt for the people who will die because of the extension of the research exercise to human beings. However, if she does not change, the company will have to carry out further research to improve the vaccine so that it can be more effective. Even though the company may be delayed in making the breakthrough in the vaccine, it will have saved its reputation and lives of targeted participants (Willis Towers Watson, 2010). Therefore, Monique should not change the figures and she should explain to her boss that the action is illegal and unethical, and she is not prepared to be part of it.
Issue 2 - Organizational Environment
Matrix is a good structure for Imperious because it will help the company to continue developing innovative products and meet the needs of buyers from any part of the world. A matrix structure is an organization design that brings together people and resources in two different ways, but simultaneously: by product and by function. A matrix structure is a rectangular network that indicates a vertical flow of functional responsibility and horizontal movement of product responsibility.
An organization that has a matrix structure is distinguished into various needs that will help in the achievement of its goals. The organization has minimal management levels within functions and authority is highly decentralized. People working in different functions report to the heads of the functional areas which in some cases are vice presidents, but these heads do not directly supervise them. The work of employees is determined by the virtue of their membership in a cross-functional product team, which is led by a product manager (Hartigan, 2014:426). The employees in these functional areas are commonly called two-boss, employees as they report to two levels of authority which are the team product manager and the functional manager.
Imperious can benefit from matrix structure in four ways. First, the application of cross-functional teams reduce barriers and addresses the challenge of subunit orientation. Keeping differences between functions at a minimum makes integration easier than other traditional structures. The team structure can help the company to easily adapt to the different business environment and learn from others as well as make the organization more flexible and more responsive to rapidly changing product and customer needs. Second, matrix structure enhances communication between functional specialists and allows team members from various functional areas to learn and improve their skills.
Third, matrix structure permits effective use of skills of specialized workers who move from one product to the other when the need arises. For example, skills in research and development are necessary at the beginning of a project, and then engineers come into the design and the product. Hence, people move around to areas where their skills are needed most which change the team membership constantly (Harvard Business Review, 2008). Fourth, the two-way functional and product approach helps to address the issues of cost and quality. The fundamental objective of functional specialists is technical in nature in most cases which means they have to produce high quality and most innovative product (Hartigan, 2014:427). On the other hand, the product managers deal with the cost and speed of development.
Nigel should be very cautious with the introduction of matrix structure at Imperious Technology because its principles appear very logical in theory but they experience a lot of issues when they are practically implemented. The matrix does not have the benefits that are found in the bureaucratic structure. It has flat hierarchical levels and few rules and lacks a control structure that would enable employees to come up with reliable expectations of each other. As seen above, team members constantly negotiate among themselves on their responsibilities which result in mutual understanding, making the organization highly flexible (Hartigan, 2014:427). However, in practice, many people shun away from the role ambiguity and conflict which results from the matrix structures. Matrix structures do not have a precisely defined hierarchy of authority, and this can cause misunderstanding between functions and product groups over the allocation of resources.
In practice, allocation of company resources is fuzzy because products exceed their budgets and specialists can do very little to change the technical obstacles that they encounter in their work. Therefore, there are possibilities of power struggles emerging between product and functional managers as well as infiltration of politics in the effort of trying to gain top management’s support (428). Thus, matrix structures require proper management for their benefits to outweigh their drawbacks. They are not appropriate for daily situations, but useful when an organization requires a high degree of coordination between functional specialists as it is important for an enterprise to respond to changing business environment.
If imperious changes its organizational design to a matrix structure, it might decide five to have functional areas headed by vice presidents and reporting to the CEO. The functions might include Engineering, Sales and Marketing, Finance, Research and Development, and Purchasing. The company will also have several product managers who will depend on the categories of products that the firm produces. For example, the company can have four product managers in charge of power generation equipment, light rail cars, automotive robotics, and oil refinery. Thus, all employees will be reporting in two ways: functional managers and product managers.
Issue 3 - Critical Thinking
The issue raised by the author is whether Thor is the greatest superhero in comic books of all time. The conclusion of the text is that there is not, and there will never be a superhero like Thor. The argument that Thor is the greatest superhero because it was ranked number one in 2015 by Ragnorak Zeitschrift is a fallacy of appeal to questionable authority. It is a fallacy because no one authority is perfect, as the opinion of the magazine can contradict with the opinions of others who may have provided their views on the same topic (Brant, 2008a). The author should have avoided depending on the strength of a single authority to support such a conclusion which deserves highly reliable sources.
Another fallacious argument is that author’s uncle has read more and watched more superhero movies that anyone known to the writer and this makes him the best person to decide on the best method for relaxing after a long day of work. The argument can be categorized as a fallacy of appeal to authority as well (Brant, 2008b). The author assumes that his uncle is the most qualified expert to make a judgment on the best superhero in comic books. He fails to consider that there could be other people across the world that may have read more comic books and watched more superhero movies than his uncle (Brant, 2008c). The argument that nobody likes movies with depressing plots is a hasty generalization fallacy because it is not correct for the author to assume that other people do not like these types of movies because he does not like them (Browne & Keeley, 2010:88). The value proposition in this writing is intolerance because the author considers those who may have different opinions on the subject of discussion as idiots (69). Additionally, the author relies on only the sources of evidence that support his opinion and fails to consider others which may have different views on the topic of discussion.
Issue 4 – Business Associations and Torts
Since I prefer to be the sole owner of the firm, the most appropriate form of business is a sole proprietorship. A partnership or a company requires at least two people to form a business. In a sole proprietorship, the owner has full control of the firm. It is easier to form this type of business than creating a partnership or a formal corporation (Kubasek et al., 2012: 23). For example, in some states, sole proprietorship businesses can be created without the requirement for double taxation that is common in many corporations. The flexibility and full control of the the management of the business is an important aspect I acknowledge as important especially in the first stages of the business.
Additionally, I can use my name on the business or choose another one to enhance my marketing efforts. A sole proprietorship does not require filing separate taxes for the business and the owner like it is with formal corporations, where the owners and the business are treated like separate entities in law. I will include business details and figures on my personal tax return which will help in saving costs of accounting and tax computations (24). Unlike companies, sole proprietorships are taxed like personal income and not corporate tax rates. Additionally, they allow for flexibility in terms of the stringent rules that must be followed by corporate entities when they are preparing their book of accounts. All decisions about the business will be made by the owner which increases the speed at which the decisions are made.
A partnership is not appropriate because the authority to make decisions will be divided among the partners who can cause inconsistency in policy and delay in implementation when disagreements occur. Sole proprietorships tend to have a longer life than partnerships because, for the latter, they are dissolved when one or more parties leave the firm for one reason or the other. It is harder to form a partnership or a company than a sole proprietor. In the case of a partnership, the prospective partners must come together and agree to the terms and conditions of their relationship (Bagley, 2008:380). They must prepare a partnership agreement which will show the role and obligations of every partner. The whole formation process can take few weeks to several months, depending on the number of partners and the nature of the business they want to start. However, it is essential to acknowledge the capabilities of creating a larger pool of funds and diversified risks with a partnership as compared to a sole proprietorship. Companies are harder to create than sole proprietorships because one has to get a charter and seek legal services.
Flora is legally and ethically responsible for the damage of Jamie’s fence.. Flora is an independent contractor who has been hired by the principal to carry out a particular job related to the applications and filing documents in connection with the creation of the enterprise. In this case, the principal has no control of how the contractor will physically execute her tasks or information on her work performance (Hartigan, 2014:265). Therefore, the principal will not be liable for torts committed by the independent contractor. Additionally, Flora is ethically liable to repair the fence because she is the one who forgot to set her brake on when it was necessary. Flora should have exercised due care while executing her task. In fact, she could have still caused the damage if she was delivering documents for another party. Thus, the principal has nothing to do with the accident caused by the independent contractor and asking him to pay will be legally and morally wrong.
References
Badaracco, C. (1992). American Culture and the Marketplace: R.R. Donnelley's Four American Books Campaign, 1926-1930. Washington DC: Library of Congress.
Bagley, C. (2008). Winning legally: The value of legal astuteness. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 378-390.
Browne, M. N. & Keeley, S. M. (2010). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Brant, S. (2008a). Dr. Russell Ackoff on Systems Thinking - Pt 1. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxWoZJAD8k
Brant, S. (2008b). Dr. Russell Ackoff on Systems Thinking - Pt 2. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdBiXbuD1h4
Brant, S. (2008c). Dr. Russell Ackoff on Systems Thinking - Pt 3. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBrEJjT-dWU
Chartered Quality Institute (2009). The antidote to fads - change management thinking - John Seddon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXFCopJE6rg
Christensen, D. S. & Boneck, R. (2010). Four questions for analyzing the right-versus-right dilemmas of managers. Journal of Business Case Studies, 6(3), 53-57.
Hartigan, R. (2014). The manager in organization and society. Boston, M.A. : Pearson Learning
Harvard Business Review (2008). Where will we find tomorrow's leaders? Retrieved September 4, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMQmKHmIqY4
Kubasek, N. K., Bremman, B. A. & Browne, M. N. (2012). The legal environment of business: A critical thinking approach (6th ed.). Boston, M.A.: Pearson Learning Solutions.
Willis Towers Watson (2010). Recognizing the role of managers – Julie Gebauer. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ2tmqRkiCM
