100-word reply about their Primary Task Response regarding items you found to be compelling and enlightening. To help you with your discussion, please consider the following questions:
- What did you learn from your classmate’s posting?
- What additional questions do you have after reading the posting?
- What clarification do you need regarding the posting?
- What differences or similarities do you see between your posting and other classmates’ postings?
Student paper down below:
If to be observed through the lens of a company’s own interests, Joe’s relationship with this client would be considered in conflict with the interests of the merging companies. A conflict of interest can be defined as any situation that has the potential to undermine the professional interest or official responsibilities of an individual in favor of that individual’s own self-interests (Conflict of Interest, n.d.). In this instance, Joe has knowingly engaged in a relationship with a client of UWEAR that is other than professional. This personal relationship has the potential to affect the company negatively in the near future if it hasn’t already. This situation is dangerous to an organization similar to a romantic relationship between workers. Where the potential consequences of developing a romantic relationship in the workplace could result in a decrease in moral, employees leaving or being fired, Joe’s relationship with his client has the potential to cost the company long-term profits in terms of Bill’s business or Joe acting in a manner to favor the friendship developed with his client over interests of the company. This would yield unforeseeable consequences that could put any company at risk.
The term “bribery” can be used to describe any act of giving or receiving something of value with the intention of holding influence over an individual’s or group’s actions (Bribery, n.d.). In the form of gifts, the only thing Joe receive materially from Bill was an expensive case of wine. Non-material gifts would include the multiple yacht trips with Bill. The three clients Bill provided in the form of recommendation will not be counted because Joe would still have to make the offer and sell it. One could argue the gesture of recommending Joe to those three hotel owners was a gift itself but is irrelevant without Joe’s ability to sell the service. If the gifts provided to Joe by Bill were a form of bribery, there would be an intent on the part of Bill to influence Joe in some way from the gifts. Although these actions could be considered bribery, there isn’t enough information in the text to suggest Bill’s intent was malicious in nature. However, one could claim differently with the potential clients directed to Joe from Bill. When Joe was to meet with these clients, who were competitors with Bills hotel chain, Joe would meet them at Bill’s restaurant. This could fall under bribery if with the referral came the request or demand to meet these clients in his restaurant, giving him business and profits from the referral to Joe. However, if Bill did not make this request of Joe and Joe simply arranging to meet at that restaurant out of Joe’s own preference, this would not have been a form of bribery. In summary, Bill’s actions could be considered bribery if there was the intent, however, there is not enough information to make a definitive conclusion.
Joe’s conflict of interest with the company could be viewed potentially with two ethical theories; the first of which being egoism theory. Egoism theory where one’s self is the motivation behind the actions of an individual (Board, 2015). In this case, Joe’s behavior would be influenced by the gifts received by Bill. Joe would put his material benefits and the want to continue to receive them above the duties of a sales representative. In this instance, one may believe that Joe’s being influenced over the gifts would label the exchange as bribery, contradictory from what was stated previously; however, the claim was that Bill was not intending the gifts to be of influence, or there was not enough material to make such a claim. The other ethical theory is care theory, which is a theory that concentrates on decisions made with consideration on relationships before anything else (Board, 2015). In this case, Joe’s behavior would be influenced not by the gifts, but by friendship, with a motivation to maintain it, and would put his friendship over the needs of the organization. This is similar to a point made previously with workplace romance, where a couple could potentially put their relationship over the company. Both theories would provide an explanation for Joe’s motivations to not put the company first as a sales representative. However, based on Joe’s attitude towards Bill, describing him as “a great guy” and including his family in the relationship, the care theory would work best in this instance.
As spoken about previously, this relationship has the potential to hurt the company. if Joe values his friendship with Bill over his responsibilities to the company, Bill could take advantage of this, knowingly or not. In a situation where Bill may feel the price for each uniform is too high, Joe may attempt to lower the offer against company standards to prevent a fallout with Bill. However, if Joe and Bill’s relationship turn sour, this may also negatively benefit the company in terms of losing Bill’s business and potentially the other clients provided by Bill. Once again, a relationship between a service provider and client is best as when kept professional. Joe’s friendship, although potentially harmless, could result in losses for the company