A Competitive Coup in the In-Flight Magazine. When the manager for market intelligence of AutoCorp, a major automotive manufacturer, boarded the plane in Chicago, her mind was on shrinking market share and late product announcements. As she settled back to enjoy the remains of a hectic day, she reached for the in-flight magazine. It was jammed into the seat pocket in front of her. Crammed into this already tiny space was a report with a competitor’s logo, marked “Confidential—Restricted Circula- tion.” It contained a description of new product announce- ments for the next two years. Not only was it intended for a small circle of senior executives, but it also answered the ques- tions she had recently proposed to an external research firm.
The proposal for the solicited research could be can- celed. Her research budget, already savaged, could be saved. She was home free, legally and career-wise. She foresaw only one problem. In the last few months, AutoCorp’s newly hired ethicist had revised the firm’s Busi- ness Conduct Guidelines. They now required company em- ployees in possession of a competitor’s information to return it or face dismissal. But it was still a draft and not formally approved. She had the rest of the flight to decide whether to return the document to the airline or slip it into her briefcase.
the commission. The group’s claims were that the boaters (1) spent thousands of dollars on community goods and services, (2) did not create the litter, and (3) were being unjustly penal- ized because the commission’s fact finding was flawed. With the last claim in mind, the boaters flooded the city with public record requests. The clerks reported that some weeks the requests were one per day. Under continued pressure, the city attorney hired a private investigator (PI) to infiltrate Boaters Inc. to collect information. He rationalized this on the grounds that the boaters had challenged the city’s grant applications in order to “blackmail the city into dropping plans to regulate the boaters.” The PI posed as a college student and worked for a time in the home of the boater organization’s sponsor while help- ing with mailings. Despite the PI’s inability to corroborate the city attorney’s theory, he recommended conducting a background investigation on the organization’s principal, an employee of a tabloid newspaper. (The FBI, on request of city or county police organizations, generally performs back- ground investigations.)
The PI was not a boating enthusiast and soon drew sus- picion. Simultaneously, the organization turned up the heat on the city by requesting what amounted to 5,000 pages of information—“studies and all related documents containing the word ‘boat.’” Failing to get a response from Miro Beach, the boaters filed suit under the Florida Public Records Act. By this time, the city had spent $20,000.
The case stalled, went to appeal, and was settled in favor of the boaters. A year later, the organization’s principal filed an invasion of privacy and slander suit against the city attorney, the PI, and the PI’s firm. After six months, the suit was amended to include the city itself and sought $1 million in punitive damages.
What are the most prudent decisions she can make about her responsibilities to herself and others?
What are the implications of those decisions even if there is no violation of law or regulation
Home health signed a 90,000 note at 11 1/2% simple interest for 180 days for electronic equipment, on October 1. On February 18, the note was sold to another firm at a discount rate of 12 1/2%. Find a) the discount period, b) the discount, and c) the proceeds.
The most prudent decisions the manager for market intelligence can make about her responsibilities to herself and others in this situation are as follows:
1. Return the document to the airline: The manager can choose to act ethically and return the confidential document to the airline, even though the Business Conduct Guidelines of AutoCorp have not been formally approved. This decision ensures compliance with the potential future guidelines and demonstrates integrity and ethical behavior.
2. Seek guidance from superiors: The manager can approach her superiors or the newly hired ethicist at AutoCorp and seek their guidance on how to handle the situation. Consulting with higher authorities can provide clarity on the appropriate course of action and ensure that all decisions are aligned with the company's values and policies.
3. Preserve the document but disclose its existence: If the manager believes that there is a legitimate need to retain the document for valid business reasons, she can disclose its existence to senior executives at AutoCorp while explaining the circumstances. This way, she can act transparently and involve others in the decision-making process, allowing for a collective determination of the best course of action.
Regardless of whether there is a violation of law or regulation, the implications of these decisions can have various outcomes:
1. Returning the document: By returning the document to the airline, the manager upholds ethical standards and avoids potential legal consequences or implications related to possessing and using a competitor's confidential information. It also helps maintain the manager's professional reputation and trust within the organization.
2. Seeking guidance: Consulting with superiors or the ethicist at AutoCorp demonstrates the manager's commitment to following the appropriate protocols and ensuring that decisions are aligned with the company's policies. It also establishes a strong foundation for ethical decision-making and promotes a culture of transparency and accountability.
3. Preserving the document but disclosing its existence: If the decision is made to retain the document but disclose its existence, the manager should be aware that there may be legal and ethical responsibilities associated with this action. It is important to engage with senior executives who can assess the consequences and potential risks involved. This decision may lead to further investigation or legal actions, depending on the specific circumstances and the response of the company and its stakeholders.
In conclusion, making prudent decisions regarding the responsibilities to oneself and others involves considering ethical considerations, seeking guidance, and acting transparently and responsibly, even if there is no violation of law or regulation. These decisions have implications for the manager's professional reputation, trust within the organization, and potential legal and ethical ramifications.