1. Companies are developing ethical policies and guidelines for legal reasons, but also to clarify what is acceptable and what is not. Do you think any of the issues raised in the case required clarification? Would you take exception to any of them being classified as inappropriate behavior? Why do you think these things happen anyway?
Issues raised in the case that I think require clarification would be Northcutts case. He had to watch who and how he targeted offenders of the policies. I think all of them are classified as inappropriate behavior. I also feel it is absurd that because of someone’s status and power they are allowed to get away with such violations. That is also why I feel these things happen. Top executive or head members of an organization probably feel like they can get away with anything because they are at the top. If that is the case then why hire people like Bryan to investigate what is going on in the work environment? Members of an organization probably feel like they can get away with anything because they are at the top. If that is the case then why hire people like Bryan to investigate what is going on in the work environment? They probably figure hat since they are the boss, they are not going to be investigated or turned in. There should be no exceptions.
2. In the first example (Bryan’s), it is apparent that he did not believe justice had been ultimately served by the decision his company made. Should he have taken the issue to the authorities? Or was it enough that he had reported the problem through the proper channels and let the organization handle it, as was the recommendation of Linn Hynds? Provide a rationale for the position you are willing to take on this matter.
Ultimately, I feel Bryan did the right thing. He reported the issue to the organization and left it up to them to handle it. These days, that in itself takes a lot of courage. Yes, it is your...