Mike And Angel

Issue 1 - Ethics and Legal Environment

In the case of Mike and Angel, Mike is facing a moral problem in deciding if he should remove Angel as chairman of the board, due to Angel’s scandalous past, in order to appease discontented shareholders of the gun manufacturing company. Mike has the option to either ignore the detractors or take action to remove Angel from the board. When assessing the options, Mike should utilize Joseph Badaracco, Jr.’s (2002) ethical analysis framework to determine the best ethically and morally responsible course of action. After applying Badaracco’s framework, my recommendation is for Mike to renounce any further action against Angel and provide a final statement to shareholders and the community, whereby Mike will

uphold his commitment to advocate Angel as a pillar of the community. This recommendation was determined by first identifying “the best net-net consequences” to include the winners, losers, risks and the best plan of action (Badaracco, 2002).
The winners in the case against Angel are the shareholders. However, the winners in the case in favor of Angel include Angel himself, Mike, the company and the community, as Angel will remain in a position which allows him to continue to serve the company and community as a whole. Likewise, the losers in the case against Angel include Angel himself, Mike, the company and the community, as the negative connotation following Angel’s dismissal would likely result in a chain reaction wherein Angel would not be accepted into roles where he can be of service, whereas the losers in the case in favor of Angel are the shareholders. The potential risks faced by Mike in not supporting Angel include legal, financial and reputational, as Angel may choose to sue Mike and the company for wrongful dismissal, resulting in a financial impact to both Mike and the company, and the company may face reputational risks by customer supporters of Angel who may then choose not to patronize the company, which would lead to further financial impacts on the company. Comparably, Mike and the company may also face financial and reputational risks if Mike chooses to retain Angel, as disgruntled shareholders may decide to demand Mike’s discharge, which would lead to a financial impact for Mike, while customers who are against the company retaining Angel may choose to not patronize the company, leading to a financial impact on the company.
After assessing the various consequences, the best plan of action that endeavors to equalize advantages and detriments for the collective group of winners and losers while improving the collective group, is for Mike to refrain from taking action against Angel and to support his decision through declaration to shareholders and the community (Hosmer, 2011, p. 11). Badaracco’s (2002) next step in the framework is to identify the rights of Angel, Mike, and the shareholders which cannot be violated. Each individual has the right to their own opinion of Angel’s prior actions. However, Angel has the right to not be discriminated against and face potential dismissal when it is assumed that criminal history was not a determinant in selection of the board position. Mike’s actions in response to the continued negative comments must account for the rights of all involved. In determining the best course of action, Badaracco (2002) advises to define the message to be conveyed regarding the communicator’s ideals and principles. In championing Angel, Mike is choosing integrity of upholding his original statement in support of Angel over his own self-interest, as Mike will possibly face retribution for his decision to support Angel.
Finally, Badaracco (2002) instructs to identify how Mike’s decision will realistically work. As previously alluded to, it is assumed that the company did not perform a background check on Angel, nor was disclosure of criminal history required for employment, nor did Angel’s employment contract address grounds for release in the event a criminal history is discovered. As such, releasing Angel for a prior criminal conviction has the potential for legal retribution by Angel. Continuing to advocate Angel as an upstanding citizen and respectable board member may result in the possible demand by shareholders for Mike’s release. However, Angel has many supporters both within the company and community. When applying Badaracco’s (2002) “newspaper test,” Angel’s 45 years of commendable service to the community would overshadow the few years Angel participated in criminal activities and is a positive story on how people are able to overcome adversity and to use negative experiences to assist others. When applying Badaracco’s (2002) test to “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes,” would Mike appreciate if immoral decisions he made as a young adult eclipsed the honorable work he has performed in his career? The answer is likely no, as most people do not want to be defined solely by regretful decisions. In Badaracco’s (2002) final test, the “obituary test,” Angel will be recognized for the positive impact he made in his community over the course of 45 years. If Mike were to decide to retract his support for Angel in favor of the disgruntled shareholders, Mike may be recognized for ruining the career of a highly decorated citizen of the community for personal gain.
In conclusion, in consideration of comparison of the effects in support of terminating Angel from the board versus opposition of terminating Angel from the board, it was determined that terminating Angel would pose the least good and most harm to Angel, Mike, the company and the community. Therefore, the decision for Mike to renounce any further action against Angel and provide a final statement to shareholders, and the community upholding his commitment to support Angel, is justified.
Issue 2 - Organizational Environment (1000 Words)
According to Gareth Jones (2013), organizations seek to restructure for a myriad of reasons in order to be agile to changes in the internal and external environment (p. 308). John Seddon advises that organizational design can obstruct an organization’s ability to meet customer demands, but to curb such impediments an organization need only to meet, not exceed, such customer demands by utilizing a systems thinking application (2007, p. 19; 2008, p. 31). In determining the matrix structure, Mannerly likely employed a systems thinking application to the current organizational structure, culture and external environment and determined that IBC’s current operations were impeding IBC’s ability to quickly react and innovate and also lacked focus on a customer driven goal (Jones, 2013, p. 296 & 315; Seddon, 2008, p. 31). Given the attributes Mannerly envisions for IBC in changing to a matrix structure, through differentiation and the division of labor, Mannerly is seeking to create a culture of shared values of entrepreneurship to foster innovation, customer commitment in understanding the aspects of its individual customers and uniformity in processes (Jones, 2013, p. 295, 296 & 350). It is assumed, per the attributes Mannerly defines, that IBC is currently operating under a tall product division structure, wherein the authority is communicated from the top down, thereby prohibiting the organization’s ability to quickly respond to the dynamic customer environment (Jones, 2013, p. 380 & 414).
IBC produces a myriad of high-tech products for a varied customer base across the world.

To compete in the global high-tech market, Mannerly envisages changing to a matrix organization structure, wherein managerial control will be shared by both product and functional managers (Jones, 2013, p. 426). In utilizing the matrix structure, the boundaries leading to subunit orientation are diminished, due to nominal differentiation, which allows for product teams to be agile in responding to customer demands (Jones, 2013, p. 427). Likewise, the matrix structure offers the opportunity for open communication, learning and development of all employees, which fosters innovation (Jones, 2013, p. 427). Additionally, the fluid structure of the matrix organization provides the ability to move employees with specialized skills and knowledge between product teams as needed (Jones, 2013, p. 427). Furthermore, the shared functional and product focus allows the product teams to invent quality products while the functional oversight keeps costs constrained (Jones, 2103, p. 427). However, the lack of a vertical bureaucratic structure can lead to role conflict and role ambiguity (Jones, 2013, p. 394 & 427). Similarly, financial resources are strained due to competition between the functions and product teams leading to infighting (Jones, 2013, p. 428). Moreover, the flexibility afforded in a matrix structure eventually results in stovepiping, as informal leaders build core competencies and resist knowledge transfer (Jones, 2013, p. 428). Also, the flexible structure becomes constricted and morphs to a mechanistic structure in order for management to gain greater oversight, as goal achievement diminishes (Jones, 2013, p. 428). The industry in which IBC operates requires continually creating new product. Therefore, Mannerly’s strategy in organizational change will allow IBC to use its core competency in innovation of high-tech products to gain a competitive advantage in the global market

by allowing the organization to quickly react to customer demands (Jones, 2013, p. 196 & 298). However, to maintain the envisioned culture in the matrix organization, Mannerly will need to design the organization with a structure that provides for oversight at a corporate level of global processes and prevents subunit orientation, while allowing the product teams to perform as local companies in order to support customer driven goals (Jones, 2013, p. 295, 357 & 426).
The first step in the organization design is to identify the integration mechanism to ensure collaboration between product teams (Jones, 2013, p. 357). Given the size of IBC and the differing product lines, creation of an integration department will increase product team cross-communication and promote a culture of shared values (Jones, 2013, p. 360). Next, to balance Mannerly’s envisioned attributes of centralization and decentralization, the matrix design will allow product team managers to retain control of daily decision making, which will foster innovation and allow functional and executive leaders to focus on long-range planning and the strategic objectives of the organization, while product teams function under standardized rules in implementation (Jones, 2013, p. 363 & 364). In view of the highly differentiated product lines of IBC, the complexity in integration across the various products and the rapidly changing customer environment, IBC must operate under a mixed mechanistic and organic structure, with particular functional activities, those whose function is certain, operate under a purely mechanistic structure, with the other functional activities and product teams, which operate in a dynamic environment, operate under an organic structure (Jones, 2013, p. 372 & 374). Operating under the principle of minimum chain of command, IBC should utilize the least number of hierarchical levels, for the organization as a whole and within the individual functions, necessary to achieve the organization’s goals, which may require compression of the existing managerial levels and an increase in the span of control of the remaining management wherein the tasks supervised by the manager are interrelated (Jones, 2013, p. 385, 387, 388 & 389). Likewise, the functional areas of sales, engineering, manufacturing, purchasing and research and development, will each have horizontal differentiation by product line, while each of these functional areas have cross-functional teams to take advantage of economies of scale (Jones, 2013, p. 390 & 400). To promote coordination and prevent stovepiping, designing the organization as proposed will distribute authority in a way which will allow cross-functional communication and support the attributes and values envisioned by Mannerly (Jones, 2013, p. 357).
In conclusion, the matrix structure proposed by Mannerly will offer IBC the agility required to meet the demands of the fluctuating internal and external environments while reaching the envisioned goals. However, management will need to retain oversight of operations to avert isolation of activities by product teams and to preserve an environment of collaboration between functions and product teams.