The main actors of this case are:
• Ellen Durham, the vice president for product development of HyperBX, and the head of the meeting
• David Mitchell, the chief of the Sales department of HyperBX
• Rachel Osborne, researcher for HyperBX
These three people have affected by this situation for three different reasons. Ellen is the boss, and she is responsible for the acting of her subordinates. David is the one who sells and conclude contracts with the customers (which are the reason of the discussion and the ethical dilemma). Rachel is directly involved in the selling process because she, as an expert of the biotechnological sector, gives the sales department the name and the contact of some potential customers.
The secondary actors of the case are:
• Harris, software developer who works for Ellen’s department
• Siegler, software developer who works for Ellen’s department
• …show more content…
In effect, all the issues emerged in the previous meeting derive from a lack of knowledge of everyone’s duty. No one had before clearly in mind who was expected to audit the clients whom David will sell the product. She can suggest to build an auditing team within the personnel in charge of approve and purpose the customers (or potential one) David and the sellers are allowed to do business with. This team should be formed of a sales department member, researcher and a software developer. The names Ellen can have in mind could be Leheny (sales department), Siegler (software developer) and Rachel (researcher). The precise criteria they have to follow can be suggested, debated, and written down in the meeting of the day after by the themselves. Anyway, the tendency off the majority of the employees seems to be for a “Responsive” (R.E. Reidenbach and D.P. Robin) way of acting. Going beyond the third (responsive) step in this situation is quite pretentious at this
• Ellen Durham, the vice president for product development of HyperBX, and the head of the meeting
• David Mitchell, the chief of the Sales department of HyperBX
• Rachel Osborne, researcher for HyperBX
These three people have affected by this situation for three different reasons. Ellen is the boss, and she is responsible for the acting of her subordinates. David is the one who sells and conclude contracts with the customers (which are the reason of the discussion and the ethical dilemma). Rachel is directly involved in the selling process because she, as an expert of the biotechnological sector, gives the sales department the name and the contact of some potential customers.
The secondary actors of the case are:
• Harris, software developer who works for Ellen’s department
• Siegler, software developer who works for Ellen’s department
• …show more content…
In effect, all the issues emerged in the previous meeting derive from a lack of knowledge of everyone’s duty. No one had before clearly in mind who was expected to audit the clients whom David will sell the product. She can suggest to build an auditing team within the personnel in charge of approve and purpose the customers (or potential one) David and the sellers are allowed to do business with. This team should be formed of a sales department member, researcher and a software developer. The names Ellen can have in mind could be Leheny (sales department), Siegler (software developer) and Rachel (researcher). The precise criteria they have to follow can be suggested, debated, and written down in the meeting of the day after by the themselves. Anyway, the tendency off the majority of the employees seems to be for a “Responsive” (R.E. Reidenbach and D.P. Robin) way of acting. Going beyond the third (responsive) step in this situation is quite pretentious at this