Goodrich made a low biding to produce the four-disk brake for LTV Aerospace Corporation. Additionally, Goodrich would like take advantage of the opportunity to regain business cooperation with LTV. However, the production failed to pass the testing. Therefore, Vandivier asked to change the original design and produce the five-disk instead of the formal one, but the suggestion was refused by the officials. As the result, Vandivier had to write the qualification report to prove the production satisfies the specific standardization. Unfortunately, the design of Goodrich was denied by the LTV due to failure testing, and then the company comprised and replaced by the five-disk brake in the end. Based on the analyzing the A7D affair, the main issue addressed in the case is “what can a worker choose between individual integrity and loyalty to the company”. In other words, when the officials require the profit seems to be immoral or even illegal, as a worker, could he tell the truth or comply with the decision made by the director of the company.
Through the different attitudes and responses to the unqualified brake by different person within the company, the author brought the business issue into discussion. Furthermore, same person also have the different attitudes for the unqualified brake. For example, Vanivier wanted to preserve his individual integrity at first and changed his attitude in order to save his job eventually. Therefore, the issue could be addressed.
Eventually, Goodrich changed the original design and replaced by five-disk brake. However, it is difficult to retain personal integrity when the company requires meeting the demand for a goal or sales. Moreover, although the worker shows his loyalty to the company, he still has the possibility to be blamed by the director. Sometimes, the worker could be a scapegoat in a crucial default. Therefore, how people