Why did the managers at the two organizations have different ethical stances towards their customers? (Hint go to J&J’s website and look at its Code of Ethics)? The key reason of two organizations having different ethical stances towards their customers appears to be that J&J’s managers believed in their company’s ethical values, so that when confronted with an ethical dilemma as in 1982, they consistently followed the credo’s rules when making business decisions. Johnson & Johnson moved immediately to protect the public even though there was little chance that any other supplies of Tylenol were contaminated and the fact that their product was defective and dangerous. At DC in contrast, managers had been just “going through the motions.” When push came to shove, they protected their own interests and those of their companies in illegal ways. Dow Corning’s managers postponed action and, to safeguard the profits of their company, but they paid the price. Within months of its decision to pull Tylenol from store shelves, however, J&J regained its status as leader in the painkiller market and has since increased its market share because of its enhanced reputation for being a highly ethical company. The behavior of Dow Corning (DC) managers seemed out of character to many people. They had widely publicized and well-developed internal ethics rules that were supposed to reign in and prevent unethical behavior. When confronted with a crisis, their ethics systems did not prevent either company’s managers behaving unethically and illegally. Johnson and Johnson (J&J) also had a system of ethical rules in place. At its center is a credo describing its ethical stance toward customers, employees, and other groups.
Outline a series of steps Dow Corning’s directors and managers should have taken to have prevented this problem?
Dow Corning’s directors and managers should have taken series of following steps to have prevented this problem:
Please join StudyMode to read the full document