MGT 216 Week 3 Learning Team Assignment The Ford Pinto Case Study
MGT 216 Week 3 Learning Team Assignment The Ford Pinto Case Study
Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 6 page Study Guide was uploaded by Experthelper Notetaker on Thursday November 12, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 37 views.
Reviews for MGT 216 Week 3 Learning Team Assignment The Ford Pinto Case Study
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/12/15
Ford Pinto Case Dilemma Business is business always aiming to maintain competitiveness and profitability as indicators of success. However business people should never forget their social responsibilities which are significantly important in maintaining the business ethics. In the case, alternative solutions to improve the car safety have been identified but because of limited time, competition became the top priority leaving behind the public safety by moving on with the plans of marketing the car with unsafe spare part (De George, 2006, p. 298). The company waddled in unethical decision blinded with the costbenefit analysis which compared the value of life to economic costs. Such unethical inhumane decision suggests complete ignorance and negligence of the rights of others. If I were involved in the ethical dilemma such as that of the Pinto Case, I would prefer to choose whatever I believe is the most ethical decision. I would take the courage to remind the management of the possible trouble waiting ahead if marketing of the unsafe car is pushed through. I would remind the management that adding few dollars will not significantly affect the competitiveness in the market in the long run. The car may have an added cost more than the targeted price but once the consumers prove the good quality and high safety of the car the good reputation of the company will help in gaining back the added amount invested in the car to improve its safety. If that is not convincing to the management, then I would suggest informing or warning the public on the risk carried by the Pinto car. The company with passion to stay on top of the competition however will surely decline such suggestion. If I will no see no any success on convincing the people involved in the company to make ethical decision on marketing the Pinto Car, I would not hesitate to take courage to blow the whistle. The public safety is at stake so standing on ones obligation by refusing to cooperate with the future marketing plans of the company and leaking the information to the public are among the suggested way of blowing the whistle (Nadler & Schulman, 2006) that I will decide to do on the next step. Whistleblowing in such case I believe is justifiable where the whistleblower deserves to gain protection from the government (De George, 2006, p.304). However I have to be prepared for worst of the worst as I can be fired instantly. Ford Company may have been blinded by the idea that “Safety doesn’t sell” but intentional ignorance and negligence of the value of human life in exchange to business competitiveness and profitability will never cost a cent in the lights of ethics. The Ford Motor Company encountered many external social pressures, which influenced their decision in the Ford Pinto case. These social pressures include: increased risk of litigation and lawsuits, reduction in sales, and the chance of Ford’s reputation being destroyed. The Ford Corporation knew that the Pinto was dangerous. If the corporation continued to manufacture the vehicle there was a risk of multiple lawsuits and litigation evolving. The corporation did a cost benefit analysis to determine how many people were likely to be killed, and how this would affect the corporation monetarily. The costbenefit analysis would estimate the cost the company would be assessed with if a certain percentage of the deceased persons’ families successfully sued the company (DeGeorge, 2006, pp. 298299). The corporation chose to cut their losses and stop manufacturing the Pinto. Even if the problem was corrected, the dangers of the Ford Pinto had already come to surface, which had destroyed the reputation of the product and led to a reduction in sales. The general public would not invest money into a product that once had a high risk of danger even if a total renovation was made and all risk factors were eliminated. Ford Motor Company would have better luck at cutting their losses and investing their money into a safer product. Viewing this case with a period eye, the decisions that would be made today, are not the same decisions that were made in 1971. In 1971, unlike today, there was not a true sense of ethical and moral responsibility by corporate America. Until, about 20 years ago, so little was known about the topic of organizational ethics. With rare exceptions, knowledge was limited to a few surveys saying that ethics is a problem in organizations. Since the classic studies of business ethics conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, managers have repeatedly reported their own skepticism regarding organizational ethics. (Treviño & Nelson, (2007) Times have since changed and today a person’s career can be damaged if an ethical issue is mishandled. The decisions made by Ford to proceed with the production of the Pinto even with the knowledge of the potential of injury or even death that could result from not spending an additional dollar in production costs would not be made today. The demand of society for safety and quality that exists today would prevent that same decision to be made in 2009. Ford waited eight years to change the design of the Pinto because of their internal “costbenefit analysis,” which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn’t profitable to make the changes sooner. (Treviño & Nelson) If Ford were under ethical scrutiny as current organizations embark on today, up to 900 lives would have been saved. The additional decision of Ford to not forewarn the consumer of the potential danger would also not occur today. Today’s corporate America would communicate potential risks and recall the product if it were identified that an issue existed. In 2009, unlike in 1971, Ford would recognize that the costs associated with a recall are far less than the costs associated with deaths and injuries. The costs that were not taken into consideration in 1971 were not just monetary, but image related as well. In 2009, corporations are keenly aware of how they are perceived in the eye of the consumer. The jury declared Ford not guilty and although Ford Motor Company obeyed the law, the law wasn’t as it should have been. When it comes to protecting the consumer everyone involved should be held accountable for the safety and protection of a human life. Nowadays an organization would never get away with the type of ethical behavior Ford displayed in 1971 due to the knowledge known in business ethics today. The fact is business ethics has evolved from generation to generation. For an individual to decide if Fords actions were unethical, the current society standards must be taken in consideration. In that timeframe business ethics was foreign to society and was not practiced as in today businesses. We believe that profit or other benefits should be irrelevant the choice should always be to avoid human injuries or possible deaths at all costs. References De George, R. (2006). Chapter 12 Whistle blowing. “Business Ethics”, 6 ed. New th Jersey: Prentice Hall Nadler, J. and Schulman, M. (2006). Whistle Blowing in the Public Sector. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/introducti on/whistleblowing.html Klebe Treviño, L & Nelson, K. (2007), Managing Business Ethics. Straight Talk About How To Do It Right, (4 ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'