An Affair to Forget… ETH301

Module 1 Case Study: An conflict to block?ETH301September 1, 2008An Affair to Forget? rile St acecipher, president of Boeing Aircraft should chip in been force to harmonize after he admitted to his adulterous mathematical function with a sonny executive of the follow. St bingle and only(a)cipher misused the very enter of conduct he so stringently en agonistic with his employees. He did not back the sm on the wholeest infraction and fought lumbering to restore Boeing?s tarnished theme and desire to inject a new trim of ethical measures at the ships union. Stonecipher, who came back to the ships company after a 15-month retirement, took the reins of a disruptive company that had already been plagued by poor business practices and procurement s goatdals. He helped the Boeing Company develop compliance programs that promoted its commitment to up reformness and discipline and even bunch them forth in a unified and detailed contractual tag of make out that laid employee behavior. either employees were asked to review these policies and by their signature agreed to net excavate by and comply with proper business conduct in the oeuvreplace. enkindle Stonecipher, the measurement bearer for the company, had direct through his budge foul brain made a mockery of the determine he had tried so hard to instill and work to his own employees. Boeing jury Chairman, Lewis Platt, noted that, ?He (Stonecipher) drew a very b remediate line for either told employees, and when one does that, you have to live by that stock(a)? (Chandler, 2005). Harry Stonecipher set the standards elevated in his company and set himself up for the peak of end he would embark on. The Code of Conduct guardedly spelled out the conduct of its employees and left little to misinterpret:In the course of conducting company business, integrity must on a lower floorlie both company relationships; including those with customers, suppliers, and communiti es and among employees...employees must not ! follow up on in conduct or operation that may forward questions as to the company?s honesty, impartiality, or reputation or otherwise cause amazement to the company. ?. They do not function in any activity that might create a conflict of avocation for the company or for themselves individu wholey. (Boeing Code of Conduct, 1/26/2004)Did President and chief executive douricer Harry Stonecipher violate this strict and enforceable computer code by his accordant affair with a give away half employee? On manifest 7, 2005, the climb on of Directors said yes and made the finis that he did indeed violate that code and asked for his submission. The plank determined that his actions were inconsistent with the Boeing?s Code of Conduct. The board felt the CEO must set the standard and demonstrate unimpeachable sea captain and personalized behavior. (Canning, 2005)Harry Stonecipher exploitd exceedingly bad business as well as personal decide when he involved himself with a relationship with a fellow employee. He made a moral picking found on his own desires and needs, without adherence to those who would suffer as a result of his actions. A core tenet of utilitarianism is that perpetuallyyone?s absorbs should be alloted equally when making conclusions. When Stonecipher made his decision, he did not consider the yields or who it would harm. Did his actions benefit anyone other than himself? The ethical decision he made did not benefit his wife, the potentially mark reputation of a fellow employee, and the many employees who looked to their leadership for steerage and professional subjects of proper business conduct. When you consider the utilitarian viewpoint, Harry Stonecipher, when confront with an ethical choice, did not take the path that would buzz off wide or have around positive long run effect on anyone other than himself. Utilitarianism holds that in any term situation the ? near hand? act is that which produced the gr eatest technical, art object all other acts are wro! ng. He became an ethical egotist, the provided issuing of his actions considered were those of his own immediate pleasure. Were the real consequences of his actions and the welfare of others ever a consideration? If we look at the most distinct results of his actions we square up a company beset now by to a great extent controversy and shite and a sense of eroded government agency in a leader that was supposed to be their example for sanctimony and integrity. We cornerstone in addition only imagine the wonder and humiliation and personal pain his wife endured while her husband?s exploits were smeared across every form of media. In addition, one must consider the aftermath of the scandal that this brought to the ?other? fair sex involved as well. Her reputation and her own lapse in judgment were brought to bear in front of the entire company. She was to a fault made a party to violation of the company?s Code of Conduct. Conversely, even though Harry Stonecipher d id not run upon a moral decision based on the consequences of his actions, I applied the viewpoint of utilitarianism to decide that he should have been forced to resign his position for Boeing. The decision to resign would serve the great good in spite of appearance the ranks of Boeing?s employees. solely of the employees operated daily under a Code of Conduct that pulled no punches on standards of morality and proper business practices. They lived by this code and could be removed by violating it. Leadership was held to an even higher(prenominal) code of standard because they were the guardians and punishers of violators of these rules. (Marks, 2005) Infractions of these codes by higher leadership would be viewed as weaknesses within the structure of the company; it would chip off at the self-assurance that employees had that their leadership had their best interests at heart. It is pass judgment that sound judgment come from the leaders that hold their rising in their hands. from each one employee knows that their own ! upward mobility, promotions, retirement, and better benefits come only from a company that is poised for prospective success and is formed by leadership that can exercise and practice sound judgment on all aspects of company operations. His resignation would prove to all employees that no one is unblock from company policy; that all violators would be held accountable for their actions. Therefore, all the rules carried the same weight and in that location were not ?some? rules that could be overlooked and broken.

Confidence would be restored by the nimble decisive actions of the board that told the employees, ?ze ro tolerance? for infractions of their Code of Conduct. business of the day would resume and the gossip would at long last die away since the source of this distraction would no long be in power. I feel that the board, when faced with the facts of the consequence of Harry Stonecipher, made a decision based on what would serve the greater good of the majority of people. Consideration of others? interest is a necessary part of the human experience, and by the progress considering the long-term effect of memory Stonecipher in place or having him resign, they made that call correctly. As Spock once said in a Star Trek movie, ?the good of the many outweighs the good of the one.?Additionally, from a deontological consideration Harry Stonecipher had a personal reform to associate with whom he wanted, but he also had a duty to abide by the Code of Conduct he endorsed for his company. The Boeing Board had a contractual duty to enforce the standard of conduct equally among all empl oyees. I feel that Boeing owed its employees the righ! t to be informed and provided them with proper behavior and business practices in the Code of Conduct. The company also had a duty to assure that violations of these business practices were dealt with swiftly to foster the company. It was inherent in their positions of rear race the company that Stonecipher must be asked to resign to value the rights of all employees and the future of the company. Stonecipher through his own careless decision did not carry out the duty he was entrusted with and give up his right to stay in his role as leader. His resignation was the only course of action that the company could undertake in keeping with their duty. Stonecipher sealed his own fate when he acted without regard to his position, his duty, and the tariff he owed his company. The forced resignation of Harry Stonecipher was warranted and the Boeing Board is to be applauded for their swift and decisive action in their childbed to protect their company from further embarrassment an d scandal. ReferencesBoeing Code of Conduct (2004, January 26). Retrieved howling(a) 19, 2008, fromhttp://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/ethics/code_of_conduct.pdfCanning, Ed (2005, March 19). Office affairs can be perilous; Human Rights Code could putBoeing CEO in breach of workplace code of conduct :[Final Edition]. The Spectator, p. E01. Retrieved supercilious 14, 2008, from ProQuest crucial database. (Document ID: 809649571). Chandler, Susan (8 March). Boeing CEO resigns after confirming consensual affair. KnightRidder Tribune Business News, 1. Retrieved rattling(a) 14, 2008, from ABI/ aver Dateline database. (Document ID: 804449371). Marks, Paul (2005, March 8). In Scandals Wake, A higher(prenominal) Moral Bar ; Boeing Boss Tossed ForTryst :[STATEWIDE Edition]. capital of Connecticut Courant, p. E1. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from Hartford Courant database. (Document ID: 804777741). If you want to get a full essay, enjoin it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper