Jennifer Arevalo Merlos
Homework 1
MGT 332-03
Professor Mullane
9/19/23
Ethical DilemmaQuestion 1:
It is never okay to lie in a business context. The only time I could see lying being okay is
when you have to take time off for an emergency or other personal reason. It’s okay to lie in
these situations because you should be allowed to have time off whenever you need to. Some
companies/businesses can be strict when it comes to taking time off so I could see why some
people lie when they want a vacation or time off from their job. Although you don’t even have to
lie about that because you never want to risk getting caught lying, it just makes you look bad
and many people especially businesses won’t want to trust you.
There are always different consequences for different lies and I believe when it comes to
lying in a business context lying can get you some foul consequences. For example, according
to the textbook “Business executives such as Martha Stewart have gone to jail for lying
(submitting a false statement to federal investigators).” This quote just goes to show that there
can be some serious consequences when it comes to lying especially in a business context.
Most lies are taken very seriously when it comes to a business context but sometimes I believe
it’s okay to lie if it’s to accommodate you or your co-workers, so overall everyone can be
working in a better work environment. Of course, that’s if it little white lies, nothing to get you in
any serious trouble.
Question 3:
I believe that in business withholding information for your advantage is not the same as
lying. Sometimes withholding information can just be you thinking smarter than others. I think it
all depends on the information if it’s more serious and if withholding the information can get you
in trouble then I think you shouldn’t keep it to yourself. So overall I think it just depends on the
information and situation, but holding information to yourself isn't the same as lying.
According to the textbook, “In the eyes of the law, sometimes omitting relevant facts can
be as bad as lying.” This statement is completely acceptable and I can see how it can be as bad
as lying. The example in the textbook was how Jordan was leaving the company he was
working for so he decided to sell his shares of the company. Ten days later the sale of the
company became public so the shares were worth much more. Therefore Jordan sued his
employer because his employer should have disclosed that information to him. When it comes
to these types of situations keeping information can be as bad as lying because you still have to
face the same consequences.
Case Incident 2:
Question 1:
The type of reinforcement schedule random drug testing represents is the variable type
of reinforcement schedule. This is because drug testing is random and it occurs at any given
time, no one knows when it’ll happen so companies can make sure who’s using drugs. Many
consequences are faced if someone is tested positive for a drug test. For example in the
textbook, the baseball player Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for steroids. His punishment for
testing positive was a 10-day suspension, he had to forfeit $167,000 of his $3 million salary, and
his banner celebrating his 3,000th hit was taken down from Camden Yards.
I think this type of scheduling is effective because it’s an effective method to figure out
who’s doing drugs or who’s doing their job when companies use a variable type of
reinforcement schedule. If people knew when companies were going to do testing or random
check-ups then they would know to prepare for it so you wouldn’t figure out what they’re doing. I
guess with this method you would be figuring out the truth and not just a catered lie. With this
routine, everyone has to follow the rules and be on their best behavior because if they’re on
their best behavior and work hard they get rewarded.
Question 4:
Of course, a good amount of organizations allow potentially unethical behaviors for their
benefit. If a famous player has a lot of popularity and brings in a lot of revenue for the
team/company, the organization isn’t going to want to keep him out of games for too long. This
is because organizations don’t want to lose out on a lot of their revenue. It might not be the
ethical thing to do but sometimes organizations push that aside and do what they have to do to
benefit themselves.
For example, according to the textbook “ Oakland Raiders Safety Jarrod Cooper tested
positive for steroids before the 2007-2008 season. His penalty? Suspension from the preseason
games and the first four regular-season games. Although a four-game suspension can mean a
large loss of income (the average NFL salary tops $1 million)” This quote demonstrates how yes
Jarrod Cooper suffered consequences due to steroid use but it wasn’t as bad of a punishment
compared to baseball player Rafel Palmeiro. This is because the NFL didn’t want to lose out on
a lot of their revenue. I don’t believe it is okay because it’s not fair and not giving him proper
punishment for using drugs can just make him want to do it again since he knows the NFL uses
him for their benefit. However, organizations will continue to persist in allowing unethical
behaviors because money and popularity are too significant for them.