To:
Craig Gregersen (Instructional Design Consultant)
From:
Marsha C Holder (Case Analyst)
Date:
October 29th 2012
Cc:
Dr. Sunnie Lee Watson
Bcc:
Dr. Ayesha Sadaf
Subject:
Recommendation for the Electron Corporation Case: Balancing a Range
of Stakeholder Interests when Designing Instruction
______________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Stakeholders and their Concerns
Subsequent to our meeting held on October 25th 2012, it was indicated that
assistance was being sought for case analysis on the contract with client, Electron
Corporation “leader in the design and manufacture of … communication devices,
including software” (Ertmer & Quinn, p. 163); and you, Craig Gregersen instructional
design consultant. It was indicated that your client demands for Electron Corporation is
two-fold as you must meet the demands of Richard Mull and the Legal Department,
responsible for all liability and thus legal matters in the organization; and the engineers
and managers, those employees (learners in this case) responsible for creating and
supervising the products and services that may be targeted for liable claims from any
one of the Corporation’s customers. The meeting further revealed that the company had
a “proactive approach to product safety – one that would prevent lawsuits from
happening” (Ertmer & Quinn, p. 164) and therefore, the objective of your contract is to
design a practical course on product liability in employees’ daily operations. Even
2|Page
Craig Gregersen
October 29, 2012
though you understand your learners and your objective you are encountering problems
with respect to designing a program on product liability in the workplace that fulfills all
the demands of your client and learners. The problems you itemized with respect to
your client in particular Richard Mull and the legal team are in the area of:
1. Content analysis: this created some challenges, as Richard Mull indicated that
the program you create must “stay away from details” and that the content of the
training must not “become a new standard to which the company could be held in
a court of law” (Ertmer & Quinn, p.166).
2. Instructional analysis: this stymied your efforts, as you felt that a “company-wide
product safety program that established a comprehensive organizational
structure and detailed procedure for a number of the issues mentioned” (Ertmer
& Quinn, p. 166) would adequately solve the company’s problem; however,
Richard Mull disagreed as he felt too much information would be circulated
without the required control and so potentially place the Corporation in a legal
bind.
On the other hand, with respect to the views of the engineers and managers, their
concerns to you were in the areas of:
1. Content analysis: they found the information too legalistic and therefore boring;
and as such, were not too inclined to be subjected to another training session
that gave the same information.
3|Page
Craig Gregersen
October 29, 2012
2. Instructional analysis: here the delivery of the content was of serious concern to
the engineers and managers and other employees who felt that the content could
be delivered in a more practical and user friendly manner.
3. Task analysis: this concern focused more on the issues of the “Line engineers
wanted to know how to fix specific problems, whereas their managers wanted to
know how to make the correct decisions about protecting their areas of
responsibility” (Ertmer & Quinn, p.165) among some of the employees’ grouses.
Other issues that were identified occurred in the areas of:
1. Communication: where it seems that many employees in engineering felt that
“product liability at Electron was much more a communication than a knowledge
issue” as despite the belief of legal most engineers “were sensitive to product
liability issues” (Ertmer & Quinn, p. 165) and therefore cognizant of the need to
create a product that will withstand scrutiny.
2. Environment: this is an underlying issue as it addresses ethics and standards in
the work place. The employers’ need to ensure that the standards of the
organization are known by all stakeholders and there is employee by-in in the
ideals of the corporation is a real element in preventing litigation. This mitigates
against any law-suits as the workers will uphold the company’s standards.
However, if the standards are not communicated clearly and meaningfully to
employees, then there is room for misinterpretation and possible room for error.
4|Page
Craig Gregersen
October 29, 2012
In an effort to meet the need in this case of designing a practical course on product
liability in employees’ daily operations you Mr. Gregersen are being asked to create an
opportunity where meaningful learning occurs across cultures and incorporates the
ideals of the organization without jeopardizing company loyalty. Please find that there is
much literature that supports this sensitive learning environment; and, I have
summarized two pieces for you and submit in this report, my solution and
recommendation for your way forward.
Literature Review
Trevino and Nelson in describing ethics states that it is “principles, norms, and
standards of conduct governing an individual or group” (as cited in Deloise, Lin & Kolb,
p. 29); also, the Code of Ethic manuscript presented by ISPI states that the document
must contain “statement of principles on ethical behaviour; principles that address
appropriate conduct for performance improvement; individual principles with guidelines
on behaviour and examples of ethical behaviour” (p. 1). As such, it is in the best
interest of an organization to ensure that it has a system in place to determine the
norms of the organization. This is exceptionally crucial for business success as
Deloise, Lin and Kolb states that “there have been notable national reports on corporate
fraud costing billions of dollars in major companies such as Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco
International” (p. 29). It must be stressed that these areas have been noted as areas of
serious concern and thus a company would serve its customers and itself by ensuring
that its operations are ethically sound. The only way to ensure this is so is by
stakeholder by-in, therefore, it is the role of the instructional designer, in this case you
5|Page
Craig Gregersen
October 29, 2012
Mr. Gregersen, sometimes referred to as Performance Improvement professional (PI) to
“serve a vital role in providing individuals with tools and strategies to assist with complex
ethical decision making frameworks” (Deloise, Lin & Kolb, p. 30). Therefore, your client
Electron Corporation has sought the right person to assist them in creating a practical
program on product liability in employees’ daily operations to ensure it, the company, is
not victim to liable claims.
Solutions
Since this demand by your client is a real need I have identified a few solutions
for your consideration:
1.
Establish the companies ethical position so that all employees are
aware of it. Deloise Lin & Kolb from their research indicates that “Research
suggests that communicating corporate values to employess is positively related
to productivity (p. 39). This can be achieved through briefing sessions that can be
an ongoing process. This facilitates constant revision and cements the ideal in
the work lives of employees. The downside is that you are given a mandate for a
one day training session. Changing behavior cannot happen overnight and
therefore implementing this idea could be problematic.
2.
Another idea is to create a one day workshop that incorportates a
“formalist approach that focuses on rules and actions that are governed by these
rules” as well as “utilitarian approach that focus on results where actions are
ethical to the point where they create good” (Deloise, Lin & Kolb, P.39)
6|Page
Craig Gregersen
October 29, 2012
practical sessions that give the learners the opportunity to see first hand the legal
ramifications of the decisions made in a real life scenario. The workers will be
able to learn the theoretical aspects of ethics in the work place and under the
issue of liability. Also, this approach will allow confidentiality in the part of the
legal team as all cases will be hypothetical and it will meet the demands of
workers in understanding how to approach ethical issues without jeopardizing the
employer. The downside is that not all employees may be given an opportunity
to role play as some may be onlookers, given the number of the workers; this
may not allow for the facilitator to see how each employee may address a
particular issue. However, the pros outweight the cons as the employee is given
a chance to explore the real possibilties of a problem ethically and onlookers
learn from seeing their peers in action.
Recommendations
Given the solutions presented I recommend that you create a program that uses
a combined formalist and utilitarian approach. This program will facilitate:
1. Confidentiality and still promote the values of the organization
2. Collaboration in practical sessions and mobilization of group work
3. Free engagement of the learners in a short and meaningful timeframe
I hope that I have been able to shed some light and provided valuable analysis of your
case. All the best as you create an ethical learning environment.
7|Page
Craig Gregersen
October 29, 2012
Referrence
Deliose, A. F., Lin, H., & Kolb, J. A. (2002). Preparing Professional to Face Ethical
Challenges in Today’s Workplace: Revised. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 17 (2) 28-45. ABI/INFORM Global.
Ertmer, P. A., & Quinn, J. (2007). The ID CaseBook: Case Studies in Instructional
Design. New Jersey: Pearson.
Code of Ethics. (2002). International Society for Performance Improvement.