\"Feuerstein\'s pledge to continue paying his workers eventually cost them their
ID: 3525773 • Letter: #
Question
"Feuerstein's pledge to continue paying his workers eventually cost them their jobs, and cost Feuerstein his company. Feuerstein ran out of money, and Malden Mills was forced to declare bankruptcy. Welch, on the other hand, turned GE from a sleepy home-appliance company into an international mega-corporation that today is a leader in several industries. For every job slashed, he eventually created dozens of new ones. For all the praise heaped on Feuerstein and scorn heaped on Welch, it is Welch, not Feuerstein, whose...management style did the most good for the most people."
do you agree with Balko's position? In answering this questions, consider the 'approach' to the issue Balko is taking. Is he applying a particular moral theory? (And he may be unaware that he is doing it.) Are there other ways of approaching the issue? What do you think?
Explanation / Answer
I am not fully in agreement with Balko’s position. Although Welch’s decision eventually lead to better outcomes, it did so, at the cost of several others. It appears that Balko is applying a utilitarian perspective while praising Welch. The other way to approach the issue would be through a deontological perspective. From this standpoint, Feuerstein’s actions would be regarded more righteous because he valued his employees as human beings themselves, and did not see them as means to achieve company goal.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.