I believe that pairing these two professionals is important both for resolving the current potential crisis and as insurance toward our future public license to operate. 2. Question: Having gathered the necessary data, you have found that both solutions require the organization to pay a fine. How can you ensure that your decision will not have a ripple effect on the followers (employees) in the organization? With the knowledge that we are liable to pay a fine, we will find a way to allocate resources that will keep our employees from having to shoulder the brunt of the financial backlash.
Thus resulting in employees being unsatisfied with the management of the business which later could impact the businesses relationship with its stakeholder through the recession, however this strategy in the long run could result in employees not losing their jobs as BA are benchmarking their competition who significantly seceding in the recession without tarnishing its relationship with its employees. This could result in the business surviving and becoming less likely to end up like Woolworths and what happened to their employees. On the other hand, during a recession I believe BA would not damage its relationship with its stakeholders. A reason for which is customers, who can be seen as the most important stakeholder to any business would try to spend as less money as possible during a recession. So with this in mind the cost minimisation strategy employed by BA would mean that
With Mr. Parker being clearly motivated to merge, I would like to consider motivations for Mr. Baily to oppose the merger. When Mr. Bailey was initially approached regarding a merger with USO he expressed concern regarding the financial stability of the UOC versus the financial stability of the USO. The UOC is financially stable due to a reserve fund that is in place due to their current business model. These funds allow the UOC to be flexible and maintain stability if they only cut projects that do not meet their fund-raising goals. The USO does not have this flexibility and could not operate within their current successful business model.
The company may have also expected to elicit behaviour in its employees exemplified by Douglas Poling through the retention bonus plan. Secondly, AIG may have attempted to prevent further destabilisation by rolling out the retention bonus plan. In the absence of an incentive to stay with the firm, many employees may have left leading to low morale and high turnover rate. Finding new staff in the midst of a financial crisis could have proved to be highly disruptive for the unwinding of the financial products unit. 1.
Is there any ethical difference between doing volunteer work for altruistic reasons and doing it purely to further your own employment prospects? Why? Introductory Statement In ethics, ‘Egoism’ is a perspective of self interest; and is seen as a decision-making process reflective to one’s own self-interests (Regis, 1980: 51). As a descriptive theory of human motivation, egoism prescribes that these motivations are both positive and negative in nature (Sober, 2000: 129). The perspective of subjectivism is the viewing of ethical situations as a reflection of what the beholder agrees to (Mackie, 1990: 17).
In the end, the choice he made was probably the better of the two. He did step down as COB but still pretty much kept his place in authority at B of A. I would, if at all possible, tried my absolute best to avoid having to merge with a company such as Merrill Lynch. The CEO and his colleagues should've done their research and find that out for themselves. 2. I think that the error in decision making came because the CEO didn't know the terrible status of the company.
However, if everything came together appropriately, Goldstein could forcibly close the discount and earn an exceptional return wen he has free reign over the fund's strategy. Getting into this position is very difficult for an activist investor such as Goldstein because it required pleasing many parties with conflicting interests. Management of the funds would be reluctant to reduce the fund size in any way as it would cut into their annual fees. Shareholders were most interested in an effective return on their investments. And, investors in OP would expect Goldstein to maintain his strategy and direction for the OP fund.
Also, the movie focuses on the ethical dilemma, whether the company should (or not) sacrifice long-term goals for short-term profits. According to the GTX’ executives, sharply cutting expenditures - by downsizing and redundancies - was necessary in order to push up the stock price and avoid upcoming aggressive acquisition by the competitors. But the question is how in real life investors perceive large layoffs? According to Gunther Capelle-Blancard and Delia Tatu – there is no distinct correlation and investors are likely to do the opposite of the board’s expectations: “Layoff decision can be associated with both positive and negative stock market reaction. The perception of investors is determined by the information incorporated in the announcement itself and in firm specific characteristic, but also by economic conjuncture” The next reason of the board’s decisions lays in the fact that the GTX was prioritizing the relationships with stockholders, neglecting the other stakeholders at the same time.
My reaction would be: I will do nothing for the moment but first things first, I have to ask my boss if he believes the crap. The one who is complaining (second supplier) should have the burden of proof, which means he must substantiate his allegations with convincing evidences. The accused on the other hand, which is myself, will only have to wait then refute every detail of the accusation (or complaint). The given case scenario is silent yet tries to insinuate that, there could have been connivance between me and the first supplier which enabled the supplier to win the recent contract and my winning of the raffle could only be a sideshow. But knowing myself, this is not the case that I will allow to happen.
This may seem like a viable solution at first, but reacting to situations the same way at all times may not the best solution for your business. As a matter of fact, applying similar solutions to recurring situations such as dealing with competition or slow sales could be fatal. For instance, if you keep lowering the price of your goods to cope with the competition, you might be forced to lay-off some employees in order to trim down cost of sales, causing your business to be undermanned in the process. Business Internet & Phone www.att.com/SmallBusiness Free Smartphone with Purchase of Qualifying Plans. Call 888.595.2102 Ads by Google Proactive, on the other hand, means taking steps to maintain the business for the long-term.