Case Analysis [PDF]

Citation preview

Jose Alvarez Hernandez MGMT 300 Professor Kukalis



Case Analysis: Empress Luxury Lines 1. When determining what his obligations are to his subordinate, Kevin Pfeiffer, what decision would Antonio Melendez most likely reach if he applied the utilitarian approach to decision making? What conclusions would probably result if he employed the individualism approach? If Antonio Melendez applied the utilitarian approach he would decide “to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people” by reporting Kevin’s supervisor, Phil Bailey. Antonio is responsible for Kevin Pfeiffer and Antonio himself congratulated Kevin for not adhering to Phil Bailey’s request of falsifying information that could affect the outcome of the reported loss of equipment. By whistle-blowing about the unethical practices of Empress Luxury Lines, the insurance company will be able to investigate about the advice Phil Bailey is giving to his employees. Antonio Melendez would do Empress Luxury Line’s employees a big service if he would come out and speak out for them. The case study talks about how there is no accountability by upper management to correct unethical practices and also talks about the discipline employees who are caught whistle-blowing may endure. Antonio should acknowledge that he is working for a corporation that is committing illegal actions that may affect his career if he doesn’t make the correct decision. Kevin Pfeiffer did the correct decision by refusing to follow Phil Bailey’s orders and by going to Antonio Melendez for guidance. The decision is ultimately up to Antonio, who understands his decision may have a negative impact on his career as well as others’ careers. If Antonio would apply the individualism approach he would recognize that it’s best for everyone’s individual interest to forget about the problem and kick the problem under the rug. The individualism approach focuses on the individuals best long-term goals and by causing a ‘problem’, Antonio could put his career and Kevin Pfeiffer’s career in jeopardy. Antonio could



Jose Alvarez Hernandez MGMT 300 Professor Kukalis decide to continue working for the company while promoting ethical concepts and actions. By making his decision using the individualism approach, Antonio will look out for himself and for those subordinates he oversees. The individualism approach will also promote ethical behaviors inside Empress Luxury Lines because people like Antonio are making an effort to do what is correct.



2. Put yourself in Antonio’s position and decide realistically what you would do. Is your response at a pre-conventional, conventional, or post-conventional level of moral development? How do you feel about your response? If I were Antonio Melendez I would not want to work in an organization were upper management and lower-level employees are okay with unethical practices. I would rather work for an organization were making the right choice is encouraged and rewarded. My decision would be to let the insurance company know about the lies and deceptions going on at Empress Luxury Lines. I would also inform them about individuals, like Phil Bailey, who are committing frauds. I believe that my response is at post-conventional level of moral development. I say this because I follow ‘self-chosen principles of justice and morals’. I believe myself to be a person of high character and somebody who upholds moral law. I would not hesitate to be the whistleblower because I cannot stand people who are dishonest, especially in a professional environment. I feel that my response would be the correct decision because in this particular situation the fraud being committed is stealing. Kevin Pfeiffer made the right choice by refusing to engage in illegal practices. I would congratulate Kevin, and use him as a witness for any court issues that may arise. The financial crisis of 2008 happened because people like Phil Bailey were allowing fraud and were being irresponsible in their decision-making. An organization’s culture is arguably the most important part of an organization, but if individuals with power are allowing situations like this to happen, that organization is not going to succeed.



Jose Alvarez Hernandez MGMT 300 Professor Kukalis



3. If Antonio or Kevin were fired because they reported Empress’s fraud, would they be justified in removing all traces of their employment at the cruise line from their resumes so they don’t have to explain to a prospective employer why they were fired? Why or why not? Personally, I don’t believe that they should remove traces of their employment with Empress Luxury Lines. They shouldn’t not be embarrassed at the courageous decision they took to uncover a fraud operation that was happening in the company for years. Employers who do not value morally upright employees, are employers that don’t deserve these employees in the first place. Antonio and Kevin should be proud of what they’ve done, but they would be justified to erase traces of their employment with Empress Luxury Lines. It’s their decision and they have the choice of omitting that type information if they don’t feel comfortable sharing it with a potential employer. A resume is a personal document that is tailored to the candidate’s preference, so it shouldn’t matter if they decide to not include that information on their resume or application. The only advice I would give Kevin and Antonio is to not falsify information on their resumes or applications. Many employers stress the importance of being honest from the very beginning of the recruitment/hiring process. Lying on an application can have negative consequences later in their careers. If I were an employer I would not hold them accountable for unethical actions that were taking place in their last place of employment. Their actions shed light on a scheme that involved millions of dollars being stolen. People like that are valuable for any organization in any industry.