Exercise Two – Multiple Perspectives
When faced with an ethical issue how do those charged with leading an organisation, make their
decision. When asked to give an opinion or choice – what data do they need to collect, what
considerations do they need to take?
In your group you are asked to take on the role of senior management group or board of directors –
looking at the case study that you have been given, make a collective decision as to the best way
forward.
Your task is to explore multiple perspectives; think of all the people, both inside and outside the
organisation who might question your right to decide what is appropriate.
There are a wide array of people who have a ‘stake’ in the decisions being made on a daily basis,
decisions which focus on profit and do not take into consideration all the costs (health, stress,
environment etc..) involved in that course of action.
Conduct a stakeholder analysis, identify all the possible stakeholders affected by this case –
(Examples would include: employees, customers, consumers, local community, suppliers, investors,
the environment etc…)
Identify all of the costs involved in the decisions made.
From your list or mind map select (n) stakeholders and assign one stakeholder to each group
member – one group member is to act as Chair person ensuring the enquiry process is managed and
all stakeholders have their say. Each group member takes on the role of their assigned stakeholder –
asking questions and arguing the case from that perspective. Help to reveal all of the costs involved
in decisions.
At the end of the exercise, when all perspectives have been heard, come back together to make your
decision as a management team – be prepared to give a five minute debrief to the class.
Take notes throughout, you will need these for your personal reflections later.
Engaging Perspectives—Three Levels
To become adept academic decision makers, students must be able to interact as experts to engage
perspectives at three levels:
Level 1: Engaging a perspective for content. Here, students develop the skill of being able to
represent a perspective in traditional summary form—they can restate the perspective in their own
words, neither adding any additional material nor leaving any main ideas out.
Level 2: Engaging a perspective with empathy. Here, students learn to restate a perspective in
such a way that those in agreement with it feel that the speaker has presented their perspective as
well as or better than they could—that the speaker has been able to “stand in their shoes.”
Level 3: Engaging a perspective critically. Here, students work toward analyzing and critically
examining a perspective. They become experts on the perspective in terms of the definitions,
assumptions and claims that it relies on.
Student Number
Year (2013)
Critical Inquiry Log 2 - STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
As part of this exercise you are required to capture your reflections upon the group enquiry
process. It is expected that over the module your critical enquiry will build a wealth of data
from which you will draw your essay ideas/ materials.
A wide reading base will serve you well – you are tasked with journal research for this log.
Keep the questions as your subheadings.
Stakeholder mapping:
Which case study did your group explore?
My group discussed Case Study Two, relating to Bio-Comm Ltd.
What were the major considerations that your group focussed on?
In this case, the decision to be made was whether it was acceptable to bribe a major
customer (with the bribe disguised as a ‘facilitation fee’) in order to avoid losing 45% of the
firms sales.
From an accounting background, my first instinct was that retaining such a large customer
would be of the utmost priority in order to ensure/maintain profitability. Traditional views of
maximising shareholder value had taught that shareholders are the priority stakeholder and
the main objective of a business is to create value for them through share price and
dividends.
However, when deciding on the ethicality of this decision, there were many more
considerations to take into account, although profitability clearly remained the easiest to fall
back on in any disagreement.
One major consideration that was discussed at length was the difference in culture relating to
bribery. In the UK, where half of the group had been brought up, bribery is strongly regulated
through the Bribery Act 2010 and carries strong penalties such as 10 years imprisonment
and the disqualification of directors. However, those from other countries such as Jordan,
saw bribery as ‘just a part of business’ and were of the opinion that bribery was necessary
and common, despite its illegality. A system such as this seemed to be ingrained in the
culture and when looking at the fundamental policies, the act of bribing a customer seemed
to make sense – a culture of bribery could be seen as the equivalent of offering discounts or
benefits for a new or retained customer which would be a common practice in maintaining
competitiveness (in the sense that you are giving them a better deal in order to have them as
a customer).
What challenges did your group face in identifying stakeholders?
There are many ways to separate types of shareholders – primary/secondary,
internal/external etc. When identifying the various stakeholders there were some obvious and
generic groups, for example shareholders, employees, customers (Sanyio PLC) and the
government. However, what was more challenging was deciding on how removed a
stakeholder could be from the Bio-Comm Ltd whilst still being affected by the decision. Here,
Student Number
Year (2013)
it was possible to show that the final consumer (customers of Sanyio PLC) would be affected
by the change in supplier through various price/quality changes. Also, the employees of BioComm would not be the only set of employees affected – it would be extremely difficult to
prioritise the employees of the current company with the potential new employees of the
competitor in the Far East.
Prioritising the stakeholders was by far the most challenging aspect of this scenario. Whilst
most of the group found it easy to empathise with the viewpoint of the British employees who
would lose their job without bribery (especially as most students had experienced the
difficulties in getting a job in the first place), it is far more difficult to appreciate the benefits
that a successful manufacturing business in the Far East would bring (although at an
individual level, I found it impossible to decide that a job could mean more to one person than
the other). It would be extremely easy to fall back on the shareholder value theory, and state
that those who had invested were more important than all other stakeholders. However,
when placing yourself in those stakeholders’ position, the importance of other aspects
becomes far more real and
Do you feel that your group engaged with multiple perspectives, explain your response.
How did your group decision differ from others in the class, thoughts that occurred to you?
In our group, there was a unanimous decision that a 45% drop in sales was too high a price
to pay without taking action to keep the customer. However, it was also agreed that a bribe
was not acceptable in its purest form. In the end, the majority consensus was to offer some
sort of discount (with the possibility to operate as a loss leader for the immediate future) or
loyalty benefit, whilst highlighting the fact that Bio-Comm could provide a higher quality,
experienced service. There were, of course, counter arguments to this, such as the fact that
the Far East manufacturing industry was rapidly catching up (and overtaking) quality
standards in the rest of the world, and the idea that a bribe could essentially be disguised as
a discount or other reward if only given to the largest customer. This would increase the
possibility of a slippery slope in which discounts would have to be offered to all customers to
avoid a sense of bias against those in the minority (another stakeholder who could therefore
be affected by the decision).
Personal insight into multiple perspectives:
Which stakeholder role did you take?
My role in the discussion was that of the shareholders of Bio-Comm
What insights (related to ethics) did you gain from this process?
What did you notice/ learn about group decision making processes?
Move on to a review of the research related to multiple perspectives or stakeholders.
Student Number
Year (2013)
Resource used (e.g. Rasche, A & Esser, D.E. (2006) From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder
Accountability. Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 65, No. 3)
When and where was it written – how does this affect what is being argued?
What ideas can I take from this paper?
What other questions does the argument in this paper create for me?
How does this paper contribute to my understanding of ethics and organisations?
Relevant lectures and group discussions – choose any from within module
What was said?
What were my reactions to the argument or logic that was presented?
What ideas can I take forward?
Essential journals to consult:
Academy of Management Review
Business Ethics - A European Review
Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organisation Studies
Journal of Business Ethics
Journal of Management Studies
Student Number
Year (2013)