The first fictional case study was developed by Dr. Michael S. Pritchard at West
ID: 3828901 • Letter: T
Question
The first fictional case study was developed by Dr. Michael S. Pritchard at Western Michigan University for class discussion of ethical decision making [2]: A recent graduate of Engineering Tech, you have been employed in the R & D Chemical Engineering Division of Larom, Inc. for the past several months. You were hired because of the promising research you did with catalysts as a student at Engineering Tech. A meeting of your division is called by your supervisor, Alex Smith. He announces that your unit must make a recommendation within the next two days on what catalyst should be used by Larom in processing a major product. The overwhelming consensus of the engineers in your unit, based on many years of experience, is that catalyst A is best for the job. But the research you have been conducting at Larom provides preliminary evidence that catalyst B might be more reliable, more efficient, and considerably less costly, So, you ask if the recommendation can be delayed another month to see if firmer evidence can be found. Alex replies, "We don't have a month. We have two days." He then asks you to write up the report, leaving out the preliminary data you have gathered about catalyst B. He says, "It might be nice to do some more research on B, but we've already taken too much time on this project. This is one of these times we have to be decisive-and we have to look decisive and quit beating around the bush. Management is really getting impatient with us on this one. Besides, we've had a lot of experience in this area." You like working for Larom, and you feel fortunate to have landed such a good job right out Engineering Tech. You have no desire to challenge your colleagues. Besides you don't necessarily disagree with them about which catalyst is best. Still, you wish you had been given more time to work on catalyst B, and you feel uncomfortable about leaving the preliminary data out of the report. What should you do? Write up and sign the report as instructed. Write up the report as instructed, but refuse to sign it. Refuse to write up the report, threatening to go around Alex to the next level of management if a fully accurate report is not made. Other. Also, explain your choice in a couple of sentences.Explanation / Answer
Solution :-
The given problem is an ethical decision problem. The situation is an ethical dilemma that is a complex situation which involves mental conflict. While facing an ethical dilemma one should have ability to take decision in ethcal manner that everyone can involve in it. An organisation's value have gtreater influence on decision than person's own value.
So for the given ethical dilemma the the option 4 is suitable under the following decision -
1) Write the report as per instructed and recommend catalyst A for the job, as this is recommended by your engineering team and complete the supervisor's deadline.
2) Include the research report of Catalyst B that it is more efficient and cost effective according to the preliminary report but still needed more research and after final report it can be recommended for jobs in future and Catalyst A can be replaced with Catalyst B.
3) Make the report, Sign it and send one copy of report to the higher management so they can know that the current job will start within two days with Catalyst A, and also they will support your research for Catalyst B that can be beneficial for the organisation in future.
Justification -
The point 1 shows that you did not ignore your engineering team's experience and satisfy the supervisor's deadline.
The point 2 increase your self satisfaction that your Research matters to the organisation and will accepted in near future.
The point 3 increase the confidence of management on you that your decision is beneficial for organisation at present and in future.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.