Social and ethical issues in management

Prescriptive Solutions

General Motors and Ford have both had their issues with cars being sold with glaring and known safety problems. Ford's issues with the Pinto are legendary (not to mention notorious) while General Motors (GM) is having their own issues right now with the ignitions and steering systems on their vehicles. While the amount of deaths with the Pinto were starkly higher, the GM travails and missteps of today are hauntingly similar and there seems to be too much focus on putting a public relations spin on things and not enough on making sure that the cars built are both competitive and the marketplace but also safe. Fortunately, GM is not incurring sales hits as a result of the kerfuffle but they are absolutely taking hits to be bottom line in the form of recall and litigation costs for people that have been hurt, injured or affected financially by the defective vehicles. While making an attractive car is important, putting safety on the backburner is at best unethical and at worst criminal and it should never be occurring in the modern ethical, business and public safety arena.

Analysis

As noted in the introduction, there are some stark similarities between what happened with Ford and the Pinto back in the 1970's and 1980's and what is happening right now. In both cases, the carmakers are belching out cars that are clearly defective and that could pose a hazard to car owners and drivers. In both cases, the company made an active decision to ignore the problems either from the onset or at least when they were discovered. Lastly, both cases hurt the company greatly in terms of dollars and sense. However, there are also two major differences between the two instances. First, Ford's took a major public relations hit and this is going to happen when passengers in their defective cars cook like Thanksgiving turkeys when the car explodes. Conversely, the defects in the GM cars, while known about a long time ago, are not usually killing people except in very isolated instances. This is perhaps a case of moral luck and one could suggest that both transgressions (both by Ford and GM) were just as bad. However, that is not the way it has been reacted to and dealt with, at least from a public perception. The legal ramifications are massive for both test cases but Ford suffered a lot more. While this may make sense given the senseless deaths involved, what GM has been doing as of late is roughly the same thing even if they have less blood on their hands. Public relations spin and wanton neglect/bad ethics are ruling the day. What's even worse is that the United States government (the same government that is now seeking to charge GM with crimes or issue fines) had a majority stake in GM for much of the time that the GM transgressions were going on. The author of this report could drill deeper on that topic but that could (and should) be its own report (Valdes-Dapena, 2014; Isidore, 2014; Trevino & Nelson, 2011).

Regarding the approaches that Ford and GM could have or should have made in relation to these events, decisions and what led up to both, there are several that the class text points out but the one that shall be the primary focus would be the prescriptive approach. There are multiple types of prescriptive solutions. These include consequentialist theories and deontological theories. The more common consequentialist approach that people often point to is the utilitarian approach. Of course, it is not entirely easy to ascribe a utilitarian approach to a firm that is trying to compete with others and make money, but the general idea of getting the mots benefit out of a situation is something General Motors, Ford and other automakers do all of the time. The problem is when dimensions and factors such as safety are subjugated in favor of things like profits and public relation eyesores (Trevino & Nelson, 2011). When General Motors knows about ignition problems for a decade (or more) and focuses more on not using the wrong buzzwords in industry/corporate documents, that is truly pathetic and borderline-criminal. It is certainly unethical (Valdes-Dapena, 2014). Instead, General Motors should take on an adapted approach that is both profit-minded but also ethical in nature. The end goal of any business decision with General Motors should be to make the most profitable cars. That is, they should strive to make cars that people want and that are competitively priced. However, there are several factors and dimensions that should never be compromised. To put it concisely, any decision that leads to the deceit of or injury to a customer and it that can be foreseen and/or prevented, then the proper and only reaction to that is to do the right thing even if that means spending or losing money. Any decision that is reminiscent of Edward Norton's character in the movie Fight Club should be the antithesis of what General Motors, Ford or any other automaker decides to do. In other words, if public safety is at risk due to a defect in a car, a recall should be issued with no question. If a problem is just an annoyance like a bad radio or something, then the urgency is going to be less because there is no potential loss of life. However, anything relating to electrical malfunction, brake issues, ignition problems and so forth should be a no-brainer and safety should always be the main (if not the only) factor involved and not the cost of doing a recall (Trevino & Nelson, 2011).

Other prescriptive viewpoints are much more applicable in unchanged fashion to the GM and Ford situations. Many (but not all) businesses are quick to point out their convictions, passions and integrity as it relates to how they do their job, their focus on the customer's satisfaction and the focus on the customer's safety. This is where deontological viewpoints become apparent as this is precisely what deontology is. Indeed, deontology is a focus on duties, obligations and principles. When it comes to making something as potentially dangerous as a car, these principles, obligations and duties should be carved in granite from both a legal perspective as well as internal business perspective. It should not take the threat of a lawsuit or criminal indictment to get firms to have core principles that they actually both speak and adhere to. They should already be present and they should be strictly followed. Anyone or any department that does not follow these guidelines and principles should be reformed or discarded as they have no place in the collective. Of course, the base principles and facets of moral imperatives need to be based on reality and ethics, but one gets the idea (Trevino & Nelson, 2011).