The ethics game simulation provided a glance into the stresses faced in the business world when confronted with an ethical dilemma. Where I do not believe this simulation provides a true representation of how one might think in the situation, I am confident that the lessons learned will assist in my remaining calm during a crisis.

The Case of Fair Warning G-BioSport’s Quality Control department had been awarded a National QA award. Recently, the company had convinced the FDA to implement higher quality control standards. Meanwhile, the latest batch of products set for sampling had arrived (two weeks late). The results reflected 100% of samples testing positive for trace containments, indicating that the likelihood of the entire batch tainted is almost certain. The levels are well below current FDA standards, and should not cause adverse reactions in healthy adults; however, a chance of reaction exists in adults with decreased immune systems. Therefore, the question is whether to warn the public, and with what information. To address the situation, six steps were used. First, attentiveness was paid to the situation. One must ensure that all pertinent facts are gathered. Second, intelligence must be used to identify the primary stakeholders. Next, the situation must be reasoned by looked through two lenses: rights and responsibility and results. Next, the decision maker must make a responsible decision based on the best outcomes of the two lenses. Finally, a forward looking vision must be provided to reflect on the situation and encourage the stakeholders. In the Case of Fair Warning, the same outcome was reached through both lenses: Disseminate information on increased risk and allow consumers to make an informed choice. Where unlikely that the same choice should have been reached twice, my personal ethical beliefs played a role in that outcome. I found altering my decision from a “results” view difficult because, ultimately, the best decision was to let the consumers know of the risks in the most up-front way.
The Case of Stringent Standards Not long after a decision was reached regarding the tainted samples of GBS-F, word came out that the FDA had implanted the higher standards we lobbied for. Because of this change, the aforementioned product was no longer below FDA levels and would need to be pulled from the shelves. Meanwhile, an email was received by a Marketing Analyst who had been recently working on expanding G-BioSport’s overseas opportunities. He advised that many overseas markets had reduced food and drug standards, which would allow GBS to sell the product not up to standard in the US in a less regulated market, rather than dispose the entire batch. Similar to the first situation, the same decision-making steps were used: attentiveness, intelligence, lenses, responsibility, and reflection. Again, because my personal, ethical beliefs would not allow me to see a different solution as being acceptable, same outcome was reached through both lenses: apply United States safety standards to all sales. Sale of product where safety standards are reduced should not occur.

Conclusion I reached my decision in each situation fairly quickly. While following the steps provided in the situation provided assistance in identifying stakeholders and what would make each group happy, I did not find the resulting information useful or helpful in any way. Specifically because the decision I came to was one that I believed both ethically and morally right. In situations when a person or animal’s health and wellbeing is questionable, I would like to think that I will always act in a manner that puts the risks and rewards on the line. Further, in situations like the second simulation – where another government does not offer high protection to its citizens – I would never risk health and wellbeing, regardless of fair warning. Finally, with regard to the Case of Stringent Standards, I believed the answer very clear. Because GBS fought to implement higher FDA standards, it would be hypocritical to sell below standard product to another country. GBS had operated with higher standards than the FDA previously. In light of that, at no point should our reputation be tainted, especially when relating to quality control. I strongly believe my personal, ethical beliefs played an active roll in this situation. I learned a great deal through the simulation; however, I am quite unsure I would be able to apply the listed steps to the end. I know that once I settle on the decision that is best for humanity, the decision is made. I hope to never fear for my job when putting someone’s life in the forefront. Should I ever lose my job for such a decision, I most certainly should not have been employed by the company in the first place.

References

University of Phoenix. ( 2002-2007). Ethics game: move from being right to being responsible [Computer Software]. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, Simulation, MGT216 - Organizational Ethics and Social Responsibility website.