What was the “end” in case B and what was the “means”? That is, what was the change the company wanted to make and what steps did they take? Did the ends justify the means? What would you do, as a leader, if you faced this situation?

What was the “end” in case B and what was the “means”? That is, what was the change the company wanted to make and what steps did they take? Did the ends justify the means? What would you do, as a leader, if you faced this situation?

Category:
October 20, 2021
4 Views
0
0

In today’s business world, change is inevitable. Changes in technology occur almost every day (or so it seems). Newer and better companies spring up, forcing other organizations to reevaluate how they do business and to do what’s necessary in order to remain competitive or become more so. Fluctuations in the economy also cause change, as companies find ways to deal with lower profit margins. This may mean mergers, downsizing, reorganizations, or even bankruptcies. Whatever the cause for the change, as you read in this chapter, change must be well planned, well managed, and well executed in order to be ethical and successful.

Many companies, when making decisions for change, operate under the philosophy of “the ends will justify the means.” The “ends” is the result that the company wants from the change. The “means” is the action taken in order to achieve those results. Critics interpret this philosophy as suggesting that a good result excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. This, they say, is unethical because no excuses are acceptable for committing any wrongs. In the controversial situation of first testing new drugs on animals, critics say that the ends do not justify the means. It is wrong to harm any living being, whether animal or human.

Proponents of animal testing, however, say that whenever implementing any change in an organization, the cost must be weighed against the result. Sometimes a few must be hurt for the good of society. In the example of drug testing on animals, proponents of the philosophy would say that the ends do justify the means because it is done for the good of society: The successful development of important life-saving drugs justifies testing the drugs on animals.

Following are two situations. After reading them, answer the questions under “What do you think?”

Situation A: A small consulting firm was struggling to survive after 9/11. The company got most of its revenue from doing supervisory trainings and other human resources consulting. Almost all organizations within and outside of the United States were financially impacted by 9/11. One of the first places that companies cut back was in their training budget. So, the consulting firm had to make some changes in order to survive or else they would go bankrupt and many people would be out of work. The company operated under the “ends justify the means” philosophy: their goal was to increase revenue, and in order to do that, they had to make changes that negatively impacted on some employees. This is what they did: Employees were no longer reimbursed for mileage, no matter how far they had to go to provide consulting services. All employees had to pay for their own airfare if they had to travel out of state or the country. All employees had to take one week off without pay, regardless of whether they were salaried or wage employees. The company had a wellness program where they paid for the membership fees for all employees. The company no longer paid the membership. If the employees wanted to continue going, they had to pay the membership themselves.

By taking these steps, the company was able to save a significant amount of money over the next few years. In the past two years, they have been able to give small salary increases to employees.

Situation B: A large manufacturing company, in an effort to reduce turnover and thereby increase productivity and revenue, decided to make a major organizational change: It was going to decentralize its decision making. Decentralizing is when a company allows each department to make decisions on that department’s product, service, and budget. When it was centralized, all decisions went through the CEO and her administrators. Departments had to complete a lot of paper- work and often would have to wait weeks to get a decision on something as simple as which applicant to hire for a particular position. This caused a lot of stress and bad feelings, which led to managers and their employees quitting, often without notice. With decentralization, departments could recruit, interview, and select personnel; prepare yearly budgets; make decisions on purchases for the department and staff; and take disciplinary actionsโ€”all without checking with the CEO or administrative staff. The thought of the company was that this increased decision-making power would make managers and their employees more willing to stay with the company. This, in turn, would help increase profits.

One manager was excited about this change in management style. She would finally be able to do some things that she thought would help increase the profitability of her department, and subsequently, the entire company. She felt that the more profitable the company was, the better it would be for all employees. So, after being empowered to make more decisions on her own, she decided to fire the department secretary. Although the secretary had been with the company for eight years and had done a good job, it was the manager’s opinion that she was not attractive enough. One of the duties of the secretary was to give a sales pitch to potential customers who came in and asked about the company’s products. The manager believed the department would get more customers with an attractive secretary waiting on them because the customers would be more willing to listen to a sales pitch from an attractive person rather than an unattractive one.

What Do You Think?

What was the “end” in case B and what was the “means”? That is, what was the change the company wanted to make and what steps did they take? Did the ends justify the means? What would you do, as a leader, if you faced this situation?

Answer and ExplanationSolution by a verified expert

Explanation
I arrived at such answers by analyzing the given cases. It is not indicated in Case B that firing the secretary and replacing her with someone who is more attractive ended in obtaining more customers for the company. Hence, the "ends" I have identified is the firing of an employee, which was done in no legal and ethical steps. The explanation to this was taken from some articles about ethics in terminating employees. Insights from these articles were reworded or paraphrased, and the respective authors were acknowledged or cited. The "means" as to why an employee was fired by a manager is the provision of freedom or autonomy to managers in making decisions for their department and staff. The last paragraph explains what I will do as a leader when facing the situation that is presented in Case B, without having to change the company's major decision of shifting to decentralization. The ends of decentralization could still justify the means, if careful and thorough planning is conducted.

Answer
The end was an employee getting fired unjustly or unethically by a manager. The means was a manager being given the autonomy to make decisions for her department.

The change the company wanted to make was to reduce turnover and increase productivity and revenue. The steps taken was making a major organizational change and shifting from centralization to decentralization, allowing managers to make decisions for their respective departments and thereby reducing their stress from a lot of paper-work and from having to wait for decisions from CEO and administrators.

No, the ends did not justify the means. Firing an employee can impact the morale within the organization. It can be life-altering not only for the person being terminated and their family members but even for other employees in the organization. Ethical considerations should be kept in mind when terminating an employee (Elizabeth Pittelkow Kittner, 2021). Just because a manager, through decentralization, can make decisions for her department and staff does not mean she can terminate anyone at any time. According to Kittner (2021), a strategic imperative should be followed. The top five reasons an employee can be fired are lack of integrity, incompetence, inability to work in a culture, showing up late or missing work, and code of conduct violations (Susan Heathfield, 2019). Although the manager in Case B became excited with the change in management style and was empowered to make decisions on her own, firing a secretary on the grounds of not being attractive enough is not right and just. The intention to give a sales pitch to potential customers may be good, but such employee termination brings legal issues and employee morale issues, which may eventually affect negatively the whole organization.

As a leader, if I faced the situation, I would learn from what happened and resolve to developing specific guidelines necessary in decision-makings for all managers of every department. Decentralization is a good move by the company. However, it should have started by convening all managers to come up with policies, procedures, and guidelines designed for their respective departments. In this way, decisions are not made in an impulsive manner. It is crucial that when deciding a major change in the organization, good foresight and thorough planning are carefully considered.

Purchase this answer to view it.
Click the button to login/signup and buy full solution at 2 USD only.

The Best Research Paper Writing Service

Would you want to pay someone to write your paper professionally from scratch? 100% Original and 0% AI Content!.

๐ŸŽ“ Write my Essay
๐Ÿ“š Write my Persuasive Essay
๐Ÿ“‹ Humanize AI Content for Turnitin
๐Ÿ’ป Write my Reflective Essay
๐Ÿ“‘ Write my Research Paper
๐Ÿ“œ Write my Thesis Paper
๐Ÿ“˜ Write my Dissertation
๐Ÿ“‹ Write my Case Study
๐Ÿ“ Write my Online Exam
โœ’๏ธ Write my Term Paper
Write my Paper