Shared Writing: the Aggressive Ad Agency Case
In the case above, Neal Hill, the president of the five-year-old RGC&H, an advertising agency, was offering confidential information to Microsoft. Confidential information refers to any privileged material shared with only a handful of individuals for furthering a specific purpose. In this regard, a breach of confidentiality as described by Boatright & Smith (2017), is not only the act of disclosing information to other people but also the use of such information associated to a current or a former employer for an individual’s own benefit whether in the service of a different employer or in starting own business.
The fact that Neal offers Microsoft the chance to gain fundamental business information regarding Lotus, a major competitor through former employees of the company, is a breach of confidential information. It is also a breach because Lotus has a strict policy of signing confidential agreements with all its satellite companies such as Leonard Monahan Saabye where the two employees were formerly affiliated. Due to the reasons and rationale stipulated above, it would be unethical for Mr. LeBow to accept Neal’s offer. Additionally, it is a general obligation of all advertising agencies and businesses to maintain and preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Among the options that LeBow has is accepting and buying information from Neal regarding its competitor’s plans, which would ensure Microsoft’s success and an edge over Lotus. Another option is rejecting the offer based on the ethical and legal implications to both RGS&H and the two employees who could be innocent and unaware of Neal’s proposal. The third option available to LeBow is reporting or forwarding the flier to Lotus. Nonetheless, given their strict suing policy, RGS&H could suffer serious damage in litigation. The best move for LeBow would be to forward the flier and offer to Lotus since they both have a common interest in protecting their reputation and business. Moreover, such a move would essentially safeguard Microsoft as opposed to letting Lotus catch wind of the offer, which could damage Microsoft if Lotus sues.
Personally and guided by the Kantian ethics theory, I would choose to inform Lotus first hand of Neal’s offer. Virtue ethics according to Boatright & Smith (2017) addresses the inquiry of what actions are right; the above action is ethically right. Virtue ethics theory also focuses on virtues of an individual such as honesty. In protecting Microsoft and its business being honest, the offer would not only be righteous but ethical. The principle of utility in Utilitarianism asserts that an action is right if and only if it provides a substantial balance of pleasure over pain for all parties (Boatright & Smith, 2017). Other than raising the red flag to Lotus, I would bring all the involved parties to the table to reach a new agreement that would be beneficial to all parties.
Procter & Gamble Goes Dumpster Diving Case
Since P&G was the initiator of the competitive analysis or intelligence through hiring a third-party firm, the company was solely and entirely responsible for the actions taken by the firm to gather competitor intelligence on Unilever. Even though the operation went rogue and other interested parties got involved pausing as journalists to acquire material information, P&G still is responsible as the instigator of the ordeal. Indeed, Mr. Pepper had a moral obligation to inform Unilever of the situation. The rationale for whistleblowing is that the dumpster diving infringed on the company’s code of ethics as well as its policies pertaining to competitive intelligence contractors. Furthermore, Mr. Pepper had a moral obligation to whistle blow because the dumpster diving violated the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals’ code of ethics. In essence, the code of ethics prohibits dumpster diving, especially if the bin is on private property. Moreover, since Unilever’s bins were in their office, which counts for private property, P&G violated trespassing laws which are illegal, and as such, warranted whistleblowing.
Unilever’s actions to seek compensation could be considered ethical through the fair competition argument, which stipulates that companies are put in an unfair competitive disadvantage if the information they have used resources on could be used without cost by their rivals (Boatright & Smith, 2017). Universalizability principle under Kantian ethics addresses the inquiry; ‘what if everyone did that?’ It impugns the natural temptation to create exceptions and apply double standards. Subsequently, through the principle, Unilever’s actions to seek settlement and reorganization of P&G’s employees was ethical and a means of discouraging any other parties seeking to pursue the same unethical behavior as P&G.
A Conflict Laden Deal Case
Deducing from the case, the conflict that had the most significant impact on the deal was Goldman Sachs’. Goldman Sachs was conflicted because it had 19% stake in Kinder Morgan, which was in the prospect of acquiring El Paso shares which would be bolstered by the purchase of El Paso at a lower price. However, as El Paso’s long-term financial advisor, it had to ensure El Paso obtained a top notch deal. Thus, Goldman Sachs had to protect both personal interests as well as those of El Paso as its financial advisor, interests which if made public would jeopardize the entire deal on the basis that Goldman Sachs and Kinder Morgan were working together behind El Paso to attain a lucrative deal for themselves. Throughout the deal and negotiations, Mr. Daniel of Goldman Sachs kept the information regarding its shares in Kinder Morgan secret until the deal was done guaranteeing a payday whichever way the deal went.
From a personal perspective, the conflict of interest should have been addressed by first conducting investigations on all the involved parties in the deal to ensure there were no ulterior motives or interests by the parties. Subsequently, parties with vested interests in the deal such as Goldman Sachs should have been excluded from the deal and a third-party firm that had no stake in the deal stand in its place. To this end, the utilitarian principle of utility would have been satisfied thereby achieving the best deal possible for the shareholders.
References
Boatright, J. R. & Smith, J.D. (2017). Ethics and the Conduct of Business Eighth Edition . Pearson Education. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-416765-7
