Case 4: MagRec Inc.
1. If I were the manager I would have pushed for a more moral, honest solution to the problem with Partco. The company should have owned up to the poor quality parts and offer to fix any damaged parts for customers. Even though it would have cost the company time and money, it was the right thing to do. I think that if the company were to explain the situation to Partco- with the one bad batch of parts, and assured them that it wouldn’t happen again and they appreciate their long time business and loyalty- that Partco and MagRec could have agreed on some type of solution. Dinah was looking out for the customers and MagRec’s reputation, which the manager should have been concerned about as well. If I were the manager I would have stuck up for Dinah’s viewpoint.
2. I think Dinah had the right intentions in looking out for the company. I don’t think that she personally should have gone to Partco. I think someone in upper level management should have gone to Partco. Dinah going to Partco put the blame on herself, which in turn caused tension between her co-workers and herself. She should have gone to Pat an addition time and rationally and calmly explained her viewpoint and opinion on how to solve the problem. And if Pat wasn’t going to follow through with a solution that she agreed with, then she should start looking for employment else where, because a company with corrupt ethics is not a good company to affiliate yourself with.
3. The cognitive dissonance theory describes a state of inconsistency between an individual’s attitude and behavior. It is when a person alters their behavior based on conflicting situations. I don’t think this theory applies to Dinah because she didn’t let the conflicting situation alter her behavior, she felt MegRec was acting dishonest and knew it wasn’t right so she informed Partco of the situation, despite the consequences she knew she faced. Pat thought the situation was...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document