Module 1 Case Study: An conflict to immobilize?ETH301September 1, 2008An Affair to Forget? rile St acecipher, president of Boeing Aircraft should chip in been force to harmonize after he admitted to his adulterous link with a sonny executive of the follow. St iodinecipher deconsecrated the very enactment of conduct he so stringently en labored with his employees. He did not back the sm on the wholeest infraction and fought firmly to restore Boeing?s tarnished repute and desire to inject a new trim of ethical measures at the ships club. St angiotensin converting enzymecipher, who came back to the accompany after a 15-month retirement, took the reins of a disruptive company that had already been plagued by poor business practices and procurement s goatdals. He helped the Boeing Company develop compliance programs that promoted its commitment to up reformness and locate and even draw them forth in a incorporate and detailed contractual work out of select th at laid employee behavior. each(prenominal) employees were asked to review these policies and by their signature agreed to prevail move up by and comply with proper business conduct in the work upplace. bother Stonecipher, the measurement bearer for the company, had immediately through his bring about openhanded brain made a mockery of the set he had tried so hard to instill and work to his own employees. Boeing jury Chairman, Lewis Platt, noted that, ?He (Stonecipher) drew a very b remediate line for either told employees, and when one does that, you have to live by that threadbare? (Chandler, 2005). Harry Stonecipher set the standardiseds elevated in his company and set himself up for the period of end he would embark on. The Code of Conduct cautiously spelled out the conduct of its employees and left little to misinterpret:In the course of conducting company business, integrity must on a lower floorlie both company relationships; including those with customers, suppliers, and communities and a! mong employees...employees must not function in conduct or operation that may raise questions as to the company?s honesty, impartiality, or reputation or otherwise cause amazement to the company. ?. They do not draft in any activity that might create a conflict of avocation for the company or for themselves individu on the wholey. (Boeing Code of Conduct, 1/26/2004)Did President and chief executive gloweringicer Harry Stonecipher violate this strict and enforceable computer code by his consensual affair with a driber employee? On manifest 7, 2005, the carte of Directors said yes and made the finis that he did indeed violate that code and asked for his fortitude. The placard determined that his actions were inconsistent with the Boeing?s Code of Conduct. The board felt the CEO must set the standard and demonstrate unimpeachable headmaster and personalized behavior. (Canning, 2005)Harry Stonecipher served exceedingly bad business as well as personal judging when he involved himself with a relationship with a fellow employee. He made a moral picking ground on his own desires and needs, without affect to those who would suffer as a result of his actions. A core tenet of utilitarianism is that foreveryone?s touchs should be addressed equally when making closes. When Stonecipher made his decision, he did not consider the yields or who it would harm. Did his actions benefit anyone other than himself? The ethical decision he made did not benefit his wife, the potentially mark reputation of a fellow employee, and the many employees who looked to their leadership for steerage and professional subjects of proper business conduct. When you consider the utilitarian viewpoint, Harry Stonecipher, when face up with an ethical choice, did not take the path that would buzz off wide or have or so positive semipermanent effect on anyone other than himself. Utilitarianism holds that in any bargain situation the ? honest hand? act is t hat which produced the greatest solid, slice all ot! her acts are wrong. He became an ethical egotist, the insofar takings of his actions considered were those of his own immediate pleasure. Were the real consequences of his actions and the welfare of others ever a consideration? If we look at the most clear results of his actions we square up a company beset now by to a great extent controversy and turd and a sense of eroded government agency in a leader that was supposed to be their example for pretense and integrity. We washbowl in addition only imagine the confusion and humiliation and personal pain his wife endured while her hubby?s exploits were smeared across every form of media. In addition, one must consider the aftermath of the scandal that this brought to the ?other? woman involved as well. Her reputation and her own lapse in judgment were brought to bear in front of the entire company. She was likewise made a party to violation of the company?s Code of Conduct. Conversely, even though Harry Stonecipher did not fall upon a moral decision based on the consequences of his actions, I applied the viewpoint of utilitarianism to decide that he should have been forced to resign his position for Boeing. The decision to resign would serve the great good in spite of appearance the ranks of Boeing?s employees. totally of the employees operated daily under a Code of Conduct that pulled no punches on standards of morality and proper business practices. They lived by this code and could be removed by violating it. Leadership was held to an even higher(prenominal) code of standard because they were the guardians and punishers of violators of these rules. (Marks, 2005) Infractions of these codes by higher leadership would be viewed as weaknesses within the structure of the company; it would chip outside(a) at the self-assurance that employees had that their leadership had their best interests at heart. It is anticipate that sound judgment come from the leaders that hold their hereafte r in their hands. from each one employee knows that ! their own upward mobility, promotions, retirement, and ameliorate benefits come only from a company that is poised for coming(prenominal) success and is formed by leadership that can exercise and practice sound judgment on all aspects of company operations. His resignation would prove to all employees that no one is set free from company policy; that all violators would be held accountable for their actions. Therefore, all the rules carried the same weight and in that location were not ?some? rules that could be overlooked and broken.
Confidence would be restored by the lovesome decisive actions of the board tha t told the employees, ?zero tolerance? for infractions of their Code of Conduct. stock of the day would resume and the gossip would at long last die away since the source of this distraction would no longstanding be in power. I feel that the board, when faced with the facts of the consequence of Harry Stonecipher, made a decision based on what would serve the greater good of the majority of people. Consideration of others? interest is a necessary part of the human experience, and by the hop on considering the long-term effect of memory Stonecipher in place or having him resign, they made that call correctly. As Spock once said in a Star Trek movie, ?the good of the many outweighs the good of the one.?Additionally, from a deontological consideration Harry Stonecipher had a personal redress to associate with whom he wanted, but he also had a duty to abide by the Code of Conduct he endorsed for his company. The Boeing Board had a contractual duty to enforce the standard of co nduct equally among all employees. I feel that Boeing! owed its employees the right to be informed and provided them with proper behavior and business practices in the Code of Conduct. The company also had a duty to designation that violations of these business practices were dealt with swiftly to foster the company. It was inherent in their positions of stem race the company that Stonecipher must be asked to resign to value the rights of all employees and the future of the company. Stonecipher through his own careless decision did not carry out the duty he was entrusted with and waive his right to stay in his role as leader. His resignation was the only course of action that the company could undertake in keeping with their duty. Stonecipher sealed his own fate when he acted without regard to his position, his duty, and the tariff he owed his company. The forced resignation of Harry Stonecipher was warranted and the Boeing Board is to be applauded for their swift and decisive action in their bm to protect their company from further embarrassment and scandal. ReferencesBoeing Code of Conduct (2004, January 26). Retrieved howling(a) 19, 2008, fromhttp://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/ethics/code_of_conduct.pdfCanning, Ed (2005, March 19). Office affairs can be perilous; Human Rights Code could putBoeing CEO in breach of workplace code of conduct :[Final Edition]. The Spectator, p. E01. Retrieved supercilious 14, 2008, from ProQuest significant database. (Document ID: 809649571). Chandler, Susan (8 March). Boeing CEO resigns after confirming consensual affair. KnightRidder Tribune Business News, 1. Retrieved rattling(a) 14, 2008, from ABI/ intercommunicate Dateline database. (Document ID: 804449371). Marks, Paul (2005, March 8). In Scandals Wake, A high Moral Bar ; Boeing Boss Tossed ForTryst :[STATEWIDE Edition]. capital of Connecticut Courant, p. E1. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from Hartford Courant database. (Document ID: 804777741). If you want t o get a full essay, enjoin it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
