I took a week-long class taught by one law and one business professor the other week. The business professor was exceptional. I won't bore you with the details - just trust me, he taught exceptionally well.
He presented a thought experiment that made me think (looks like it worked). I thought y'all would enjoy. I can't remember the problem's details (they filled 8 or so single spaced sheets of paper), but I can remember enough to give you an idea. Leave your answer, what you would do in the situation, in the comments. As per the instructions in class, you must give an initial yes or no answer with no strings attached - then you may support that answer. Also, don't assume any facts not given in the problem.
The Problem:
You make business decisions for a refrigerator manufacturing company. Your scientistists recently invented a new cooling mechanism, way-cool gas, for the latest refrigerator model. The way-cool cooling system uses much less energy and keeps food cool for much longer than your competitors models. For some time your company has actively pursued opportunities to expand outside of the United State of America. You know capitalist America largely dictates prices in less affluent areas and that the stockholders of your company desperately want big returns this year.
You have an opportunity to sell 1.5 million refrigerators to the United Nations this month, with a net profit of $10 million - a substantial return. You must make the decision today. The UN will distribute your refrigerators to individuals in third world countries who currently do not have refrigerators. Your energy-efficient longer-cooling fridges are the only fridges these individuals can use because all other fridges cost too much money and don't keep food cool long enough. You know that many of these people have never even seen a fridge in their lives. You also know your fridges will save the lives of people who would otherwise die from malnutrition / starvation - but you don't know how many lives your fridges will save.
Yesterday your scientists informed you your fridge has a defect. Out of the 1.5 million fridges you plan to sell, roughly 125 of them will leek free-on gas through a defective tube - killing any person within a 20-foot radius. Your scientists predict 500 people will die from the cumulative effect of these gas leaks (in fact the lead scientist, in a fit of rage, informed you "signing that contract is like signing 500 people's death sentences"). Your legal counsel assures you that because your daughter company will sign the official contract, the deaths will not tarnish your company's name. In fact, it is most likely even you will never hear of the 500 deaths. You could fix the problem, however doing so would take 30 days and you would miss this golden contract opportunity.
To complicate matters even more your competitor is waiting in line for this UN contract - hence if you don't take it today you will lose it. Your competitor does not have the energy-efficient longer-cooling fridges you do - but his fridges also (you assume) do not have the defect yours do.
Do you sign the contract with the UN? Yes or no.
Why?
1 comment:
Dave, you can't sign the contract. No matter what, these days so much information leaks and is permanently encrypted within the the hard drives of every little electronic device, that you will eventually be sucked in to the problem. If you knew of the problem, you will be blamed.
I wish that ethics weren't such an issue always being in questions. We all need more integrity to just do what is right to begin with. If you work for someone who doesn't want to do it that way, you need to get out. There's so many bigger and better opportunities out there.
Post a Comment