Operations Management Dilemma Applying Christian Principles

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT DILEMMA

Applying Christian Principles to an Operations Management Dilemma

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that the ethical dilemma I opted to focus on in this write-up relates to managing quality (chapter 6). Heizer, Render and Munson (2020) point out that one of the most crucial tasks for operations managers happens to be ensuring that the products as well as services delivered to customers are not only safe and healthy, but also of good quality. Poor quality products and services have the potential to harm the health and wellbeing of customers. They could also end up ruining the reputation of companies and/or result in lawsuits. What, therefore, should a company do if there is reason to believe that a product introduced in the market is faulty and could end up harming customers? Whereas a recall could potentially harm the image of the company and have a negative financial impact, failure to act could result in injuries on the part of customers who purchase the faulty or defective product. Heizer, Render and Munson (2020) are categorical that “if a firm believes that it has introduced a questionable product, ethical conduct must dictate the responsible action” (219). This write-up explores how this ethical dilemma could be addressed from a Christian worldview.

To begin with, the Bible, in Proverbs 10:9, makes an observation to the effect that persons who are dishonest and embrace crooked courses of action are often found out. However, those who make a deliberate decision to ensure integrity in all their actions are guaranteed to walk securely. More specifically, “whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Proverbs 10: 9). Walking in integrity would in the present scenario entail recalling the product and issuing a public apology. The Bible is categorical that if a crooked course of action (i.e. conspiring to hide the truth about the defective items) is embraced, then this contravention or violation will definitely be found out at some point in the future. The repercussions of this would be dire, i.e. with regard to loss of customer trust, institution of lawsuits that could end up bankrupting the company, etc. On the other hand, if the company recalls the product, it would effectively be safeguarding its legacy and further cementing its position as a legitimate business enterprise going forward. This would likely favor the business in as far as financial performance and stability is concerned – i.e. as indicated in the verse, “whoever walks in integrity walks securely...” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Proverbs 10:9).

The Bible also offers guidance to top officers of the company on how to resolve the ethical dilemma identified. One of the most important biblical concepts that Jesus spoke about relates to treating other persons in the same way you would want to be treated. More specifically, in Mathew 7:12, it has been stated, “so whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Thus, the all-important question that the top managers of the company should ask themselves is: would I want to be sold defective products if I was on the other end as a customer? In as much as they are manufacturers/producers in the current context, managers of this particular company happen to be consumers in other contexts. If they would not want to buy and potentially be harmed, or have their loved ones harmed, by a defective product, then they should take all the measures necessary to ensure that others are protected from such harm. In the present scenario, this would largely entail recalling the product in question. It should be noted that this rule of conduct, as captured in Mathew 7:12, is often referred as the Golden Rule, and as Anderson (2009) indicates, it ought to be the guiding ethical principle for anybody who considers themselves a true Christian.

Yet another biblical verse that would come in handy in efforts to resolve the ethical dilemma in the scenario presented is Mathew 16:26: “What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). A commercial enterprise seeks to accomplish various objectives. One crucial objective happens to be making profit (Burrow, Kleindl and Becraft, 2016). In pursuit of this business objective, many commercial enterprises might be tempted to either cut corners or ignore their mandate to certain stakeholders such as customers and the community. In the past, as Gummesson (2017) points out, we have had cases of businesses neglecting their clear ethical mandates so as to bolster their profits or outmaneuver their competitors. Mathew 16:26 cautions against such a move. Behind all businesses are key executives who are involved in making all the crucial decisions. In making the said decisions, the said executives must not be blinded by their pursuit of profits to the extent that they formulate and/or implement decisions that are either unethical, deceitful, or dishonorable. Failure to recall a defective product for fear that such a recall could harm the commercial/financial interests of the business would be a dishonorable move in the light of the teachings of the Bible. Those behind such a decision might benefit materially, but they will surely lose their soul. Thus, in line with the message in Mathew 16: 26, the best course of action would be to recall the defective product.

Leviticus 24:14 offers yet another crucial guideline that we could deploy in the stated scenario. It is also important to note that this particular verse directly addresses the ideal or expected temperament of business executives in as far as the conduct of business is concerned. More specifically, the verse states: “and if you make a sale to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Leviticus 24:14). This is to say that all business dealings should be conducted in a far, just, and honest manner. All parties engaged in a trade should seek to ensure that they do not perform an action that could harm the interests of the persons/parties on the other end of the deal. Failure to recall defective products from the market would be a deliberate move to wrong the person on the other end of the transaction – the customer. This goes against the teachings of the Bible, and more specifically, against the ideals proclaimed in Leviticus 24:14. With this in mind, the best course of action would be to recall the defective items.

Fully addressing the operations management dilemma highlighted in this write-up would not only involve a recall of the defective product, but also measures to ‘right the wrongs’ at this point in time. This is more so the case with when it comes to making a public apology and compensating those harmed by the defective products. In Mathew 5:23-24, we are called upon to reconcile with those we wrong after admitting that we indeed wronged them. We must not move on as if nothing happened. More specifically: “so if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Mathew 5: 23-24). Reconciliation with customers would in this case involve initiating a public conversation about the event and offering to compensate those who could have been harmed by the defective products.

The company should also ensure that such an occurrence does not take place again in the future. This means that the appropriate decisions and policies should be embraced to prevent reoccurrence. The Bible advises us to do all in our power to ensure that nothing stands in the way of our resolve to act in an ethical or just manner. Indeed, as has been stated in Mathew 5:30: “and if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Thus, if there is anything that is likely to prevent the company from manufacturing quality products going forward, efforts should be made to fix it. For instance, if there are employees or executives of the firm found to have shunned their responsibility, resulting in release of defective or faulty products to the market, a decision might have to be made to fire them.

This particular issue could also be framed using the various ethical theories. Of relevance on this front would be the ethical theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, according to Waller (2011) essentially focuses on outcomes in its efforts to distinguish right from wrong. More specifically, in the words of Thompson (2010), “utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number” (98). In the ethical dilemma presented in this write-up, the best course of action would be the institution of a recall of the defective product from the market as this is the course of action that would produce the greatest good for the greatest number of persons. The ‘greatest number’ could in this case be thought of in terms of who the stakeholders of the company are and which stakeholder category would be impacted (negatively and positively) by failure to act. Key stakeholders could in this case comprise of; customers, employees, shareholders, and suppliers. In this case, all stakeholder categories would be negatively impacted by failure to recall the product. Customers would be impacted in the short-run in terms of being harmed by the product. The interests of employees and shareholders would be harmed in the long-term as the company is likely to attract bad publicity and lawsuits that would likely bankrupt it. Suppliers would be harmed in terms of loss of business if the company ceases to exist. Thus, ‘the most good’ would in this case be done by recalling the defective product.