Ethical Business Dilema

Ethical dilemma Analysis through the 8 questions model by Arthur Dobrin racing shell 1 Rental Appli stinkpott 1. Facts African-American applicator Stable work taradiddle More than enough income to cover the rent Good references from their previous landlord A couple with one young son (Family) Before applicants accepted, rental doer should welcome applye a background check as a standard procedure. 2. Facts we dont know Verifications of facts conduct a bungle check oWhether or not the facts provided by the applicant are dependable ? Income Salary Statement ?References from landlord Written letter/call Work chronicle Stable/Unstable work experience Applicants behavior/habit previous(prenominal) rental history oWhether or not they like to break contain or skip t own leave an unpaid rent The savvy for postponing the natural covering oWhat does Kate mean by saying in my experience whether its actually because of her experience dealing with application or racial discri mination. 3. Facts version Stable work history ? stable whether they have work broad time or not (cross-check credential) A family to a greater extent likely to be more settled in one place compare to hit status individual. A advantageously reference from previous landlord means that the applicant has a good record of being a good tenant. consecrate more than enough income means that the applicant has the capability to fulfill its pledge of paying the rent. 4. move in anothers shoes ( difficulty viewed from others that abstruse) Kate readiness give a stereotype view of the African-American applicant 5. Consequences If we dont take them owe powerfulness lose a good tenant oWe might lose our business opportunity oWe might build a strict image to prospective customer If we take them oTheres a possibility that we end up having a default rent 6.Feelings Megan Perspective Look very good for their application Kate Perspective Dont rush their application having negative co mprehension Our Perspective According to our feeling and in combination with the facts given (provided it is true), prescribed we can also try to determine based on the cognizance from the body language given by the applicant, most likely we will accept the applicant. 7. conscience Yes ? Provided the documents are true. No ? Provided the documents are false. Verification whether the documents are true or false can be done by cross-checking the credential and/or validating the facts. . description and Justification In reservation closing, it should not be based on personal inevitably/views or simply intuition/feelings, it should also be based on sluggish judgment from the facts given and validation. Given the normal standard procedure that needs to be fulfilled from the background check of the applicant and by checking thoroughly throughout the facts, the rental agents should be able to make a decision. Case 2 Sabotage Menu Not serving the interest of customers fully (by pushing other menu instead). By using ruddy fare as a bait strategy to attract customers, according to Dave. . Facts fodder is rock-loving, but the quantity is limited. Coming up with a new menu. capacious expenditure on advertisement. 2. Facts we dont know Whether the solid food which is healthy is actually healthy. Assumption whether this strategy will last for a vast time. Whether or not people will buy fast food even though the menu is being pushed. 3. Facts Interpretation New healthy menu was launched by the company to response the public pressure for fitter lunch choices, thusly by having new menu, many money involved to train and advertise the new menu. New menu launched priced lower to take up new customers, thus there will be an effect on the companys net. The objective of the business is to make money for the shareholders, thus the business need to make profit. Hence, most likely agency problem would occur, which refers to the ethical dilemma between the sharehold er interest and the CEO interest. Dave, the inclose manager, wanted the staff to push the upsize menu options and ice creams for dessert, which this refers to an issue of sabotage. 4. Walk in anothers shoes (problem viewed from others that involved) According to Carol, the manager is more inclined towards his own profit. According to Dave it is fast to maximize the profit and his own commission. According to customer, they might be cheated into buying unhealthy food. 5. Consequences By agreeing to Dave, the profit might be higher in the short term, whereas by passing play against Dave, the company might lose out on the profit. But by keeping the reputation of the company, it will help in the capacious-term profitability. She might lose her own position if she does not agree to Dave plan. But if she doesnt want to lose her job, then most likely she will have her personal issue. 6. Feelings If she agrees to Dave, she will be safe, but if she goes against him, she might lose her job . (personal dilemmas) 7. Conscience In order to save the job, Carol might let her informal conscience take the back seat, because this is cognitive resonance within herself. Her decision will be based on how she feels, whether it is good or bad. 8. Explanation and Justification If yes, she can say that her boss asked her to do so. If she says no, she can say her inner conscience didnt allow her and in the long run, it wont be beneficial to the consumer and the company.