Q1. In the Kodak Appraiser case, the participants used a scheme to reduce Kodak's taxes by artificially inflating the value of a building owned by Kodak. They manipulated the appraised value of the building through collusion with a corrupt appraiser. This resulted in a higher assessed value for the building, which allowed Kodak to depreciate the building for tax deductions. The scheme involved bribing the appraiser and misrepresenting the true value of the building to the tax authorities.

The ethical issues that arose from this scheme include bribery, tax fraud, and dishonesty. Participants in the scheme engaged in illegal activities to deceive the tax authorities and evade taxes. The scheme compromised the integrity of the tax system and violated ethical principles of honesty, fairness, and integrity.

Q2. An employer romance policy should include the following components to reduce tensions and problems that might arise:

1. Disclosure of relationships: Employees should be required to disclose any romantic relationships they enter into with other employees to the HR department. This would help in managing potential conflicts of interest and ensure transparency.

2. Consensual relationship agreements: When two employees engage in a romantic relationship, they should be required to sign a consensual relationship agreement. This agreement would acknowledge the consensual nature of the relationship and outline expectations regarding workplace professionalism and behavior. It should also include a provision for reporting any conflicts or issues that may arise.

3. Reporting and resolving conflicts: The policy should provide a clear procedure for reporting and resolving conflicts of interest or other issues that arise due to a romantic relationship between employees. It should ensure that appropriate actions are taken to address any conflicts and protect the rights and well-being of all employees involved.

4. Non-discrimination and equal treatment: The policy should emphasize that employees involved in a romantic relationship will be treated fairly and equally in terms of job assignments, promotions, and opportunities. It should also prohibit any form of favoritism or discrimination based on the romantic relationship.

Q3. If developing a policy on employee blogging, it should include the following based on the readings and cases:

1. Clearly define acceptable behavior: The policy should outline what types of blogs are allowed and make it clear that employees should not engage in any defamatory, offensive, or inappropriate content. It should also specify whether employees can blog about work-related matters or not.

2. Confidentiality and non-disclosure: The policy should emphasize that employees should not disclose or share any confidential or proprietary information about the company, its clients, or fellow employees in their blogs.

3. Personal disclaimers: Employees should include a clear disclaimer on their blogs stating that their views and opinions are their own and not representative of the company. This would help in avoiding any misconceptions about the company's position or endorsement.

4. Respect for co-workers: The policy should stress the importance of respecting co-workers' opinions and privacy. Employees should be made aware that any negative or offensive comments about fellow employees may result in disciplinary action.

5. Social media best practices: The policy should provide guidelines on best practices for using social media platforms and blogging. This could include recommendations on maintaining a professional image, interacting with others respectfully, and being mindful of online behavior.

Q4. The private relationship between Ms. Wetlaufer and Mr. Welch had a significant impact on the workplace for both parties. Here are the effects it had on each of them:

Ms. Wetlaufer:
- Conflict of interest: Ms. Wetlaufer's relationship with Mr. Welch created a conflict of interest as she was involved in personal and professional activities with her superior. This compromised her objectivity and impartiality in decision-making.
- Favoritism and perceived favoritism: Due to her relationship with Mr. Welch, Ms. Wetlaufer was perceived to receive preferential treatment and opportunities, leading to resentment and potential mistrust from other employees.
- Reputation and trust damage: The revelation of the affair damaged Ms. Wetlaufer's professional reputation and trust among her colleagues and subordinates. It also raised concerns about her ethical conduct and judgment.

Mr. Welch:
- Accusations of favoritism: Mr. Welch faced accusations of favoritism for being involved in a relationship with a subordinate. This raised doubts about his fairness and decision-making abilities.
- Damage to leadership credibility: The affair undermined Mr. Welch's credibility as a leader and his ability to maintain professional boundaries. It created doubts about his judgment and ethical standards, potentially affecting his effectiveness as a leader.

Overall, the private relationship between Ms. Wetlaufer and Mr. Welch had negative consequences for both individuals, compromising their professional reputations, trustworthiness, and the perception of fairness in the workplace.

Q5. Based on the readings and the cases of partner evaluations, here are the things the partners should have done differently:

1. Ensure clear evaluation criteria: The partners should establish transparent and objective evaluation criteria that are communicated to all partners in advance. This would prevent subjective decision-making and ensure consistency in evaluations.

2. Avoid discriminatory practices: The partners should ensure a fair and unbiased evaluation process, free from any forms of discrimination based on gender, race, or any other protected characteristics. They should evaluate all partners based on their performance and contributions rather than personal biases.

3. Consider multiple perspectives: The partners should gather input from various sources, including different partners and staff members, to provide a comprehensive evaluation. This would help in obtaining a more holistic view of each partner's performance and prevent any single individual from having disproportionate influence.

4. Provide constructive feedback: The partners should offer constructive feedback to the partners being evaluated, highlighting areas for improvement and providing guidance for professional growth. This would enable partners to understand their strengths and weaknesses and work towards professional development.

5. Review evaluation process regularly: The partners should periodically review the evaluation process to ensure its effectiveness, fairness, and relevance. They should be open to feedback and make necessary adjustments to improve the process based on the evolving needs of the firm and the partners.

Got a question with my answer?

Message Me

Cheapmath.com is completely free!

Asking question is free. Getting answers is free.

+99

Continue