Yes, there are challenges when it comes to Ethical Leadership: Ford has many challenges when it came to ethical leadership, such as, public duty verses loyalty to the company, choosing money over life and the responsibility to the employer verses the responsibility to the public. Ford rushed the Pinto into production even though engineers had discovered the potential danger of ruptured fuel tanks in preproduction crash tests. The assembly line was ready to go, and the company’s leaders chose to proceed with production. Many people saw Ford’s decision as evidence of the greed and mendacity of the leaders. I would suspect that few if any of the executives involved in the Pinto decision believed that they were making an unethical choice when they decided to continue with production. The leaders made their decision based purely as a business decision rather than an ethical one. Ford engineers did not consider that they were taking calculated risks with the consumers. The Ford leaders did not worry about potential lawsuits when deciding on design questions, and they did not refuse to correct perceived problems because settling lawsuits would be cheaper. When communicating with non-engineers within the company, Ford engineers and managers formulated rationales expressed in financial terms (“corporate profits”). Within their own group, engineers and managers understood “acceptable risk” to be the key factor in decision making. When memos using financial rationales became
Ethics is the guiding force in any respectable organization. With a moral compass, especially in the leadership of organization, a company can become compromised and fall into a quagmire of legal issues, a tarnished reputation, and devaluation of company stock if it is a publically traded company. In pursuit of examine my own ethical lens I will analyze the ethical traits of an admired leader, my own traits as exhibited in the Ethical Lens Inventory, and how I make a decision concerning a particular ethical dilemma.
The moral issues about the Ford Pinto is that they take their profit is more important than human life. They also did not inform the consumer about the facts of the Pinto. Lastly, they also lobbied the safety of the car to lowest standard (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, pp 97-99).
You have to consider the Ford Motor Company’s reputation after they made the decision to not recall the Ford Pinto to
An ethical audit is important to establish the company’s current weaknesses and strengths concerning how it conducts itself in an ethical manner. An ethics audit will involve evaluating the company’s standard of ethic, it ethic climate, and how well the company’s employees follow ethical standards. One of the first things to evaluate in an ethics audit is if a company has a written code of ethics and how comprehensive it is. Moreover, the written code of ethics should apply to everyone in the company from the top down with a clear zero tolerance policy in place for ethics violations. Included in a comprehensive ethics code should be a method for
Ford Motor Company, American automotive corporation founded in 1903 by Henry Ford and 11 associate investors. (htt28) It is the multinational corporation and the world's third largest automaker based on worldwide vehicle sales. The Company operates in two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, and Ford Asia Pacific Africa region. Financial services include Ford Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The Company manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. Its automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other Financial Services includes a range of businesses, including holding companies and real
There are a few concerns about harmful behavior of the FMC that should be discussed. A behavior is harmful when it wrongfully sets back the interest of others and has a high risk of harm. Obviously, the gravity of harm in this case is very high being that it is life threatening. Once a consumer has purchased the Pinto and drives it off the lot he is at risk to getting rear ended, and burned to death by a car fire or explosion. Since the weight of this harm is very severe, the low probability of the consumer having an accident doesn’t discount Ford’s unethical behavior. Indeed, driving a Ford Pinto would place a consumer’s life at risk. Also at stake are the interests of Pinto passengers and drivers of other vehicles who certainly are not willing to risk their lives so Ford can make an extra buck. Everyone has an interest in not getting injured or killed. Setting back the interest of consumers isn’t the only thing Ford Motor Company was responsible for.
Ford executives were under a great deal of pressure to produce a smaller, more gas efficient automobile. Japanese and German automobile sales were rapidly increasing. These competitive forces drove Ford’s executive team to respond by rushing the design process of the Ford Pinto. By 1973, the Pinto was well into production when engineers discovered a flaw in the gas tank, which was located just under the rear bumper. They discovered that if the vehicle suffered a rear-end collision over 20 mph, the gas tank could break and spill gasoline into the passenger compartment, potentially resulting in a fire. The remedy for the flaw was a part that cost $11.00 per vehicle. Executives at Ford knew the company had followed all safety standards and regulations. At that time, automobile safety standards only needed gas tanks to withstand a collision under 20 mph. An internal cost-benefit analysis revealed the costs would be substantially higher to fix the design flaw that the costs associated with any potential damages due to collisions and loss of life. The public remained unaware until Mother Jones journalist, Mark Dowie broke the story in 1977. Fueled by the media, what followed was a frenzy of public outcry and court trials.
The prosecutor advised the jury to consider the extent to which Ford recklessly and knowingly trade profit over safety in the placement and design of the Pinto’s gas tank. Ford Company went ahead to manufacture the car even after the engineers did a crash test that
Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty
Ford was an unethical leader. He allowed himself to fall into the ethical trap of “Worry over Image” with his alteration of the $5 Day policy and his creation of the Ford Sociology Department. “Ethical traps stem from confusion or uncertainty as to what action or behavior should be taken in a given situation. The ethical trap “Worry over Image” entails making decisions based on how they’ll impact your reputation or standing among peers, subordinates, supervisors, or community. Concerns about what might turn out to be an embarrassing situation may cause you to do something less ethical instead of what’s right (BCEE, 2017c, p. 6-7). Ford wanted his employees to behave a certain way and to do this he paid them to conform to his standard.
The means were limited design time and reducing costs. By cutting costs, Ford knowingly created a product which could prove dangerous and fatal to its consumers. Does Ford’s ends justify its means? Ford did create a sub-compact that sold extremely well and competed fiercely with foreign imports. The goal of the Ford Pinto was met. The costs of this win were substantial however. The money that Ford tried to save by not recalling the vehicle was spent when Ford recalled the Pinto, and extra was spent in compensatory and punitive damages in lawsuits. So the costs that Ford tried to avoid were incurred anyway along with extra.
It is only during moral lapses and corporate scandals that interest groups and the broader public ask themselves the fundamental ethical questions, who are the managers of the organization and were they acting with the ethical guidelines. For a long time, the issue of ethics was largely ignored, with organizations focusing on profit maximization. However, this has changed, and much attention is now focused on ethics management by researchers and leaders. The issue of ethics has arisen at a time when public trust on corporate governance is low, and the legitimacy of leadership is being questioned. Leaders are expected to be the source of moral development and ethical guidance to their employees.
In Canada, individual regulating bodies are in place to licence and regulate practitioners in their respective professions. It is in the public’s best interest that these professionals are knowledgeable and driven to progress society in a responsible manner. This includes acting in an ethical manner that aligns with the personal and corporate standards expected of members in a particular profession. The Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) is in place to regulate such behavior among engineers and protect the common interest of the Ontario community. At the end of this paper it will be evident that public welfare is paramount. This will be shown by how it ought to be enforced under the PEO, and how failure of the Ford Pinto was fueled by
I think Pinto case raised some serious issue of abusing human rights and not behaving ethically in the world of business. Any business/service should never ever put a value on human life and not take consideration of a known deadly danger. Ford had an option as well as the solution to design the car in a way that prevented cars from exploding; however they refused to implement it. They thought that it was cost effective not to fix dangerous condition than to spend the money to save people in spite of the fact that the only added cost was $ 11 per vehicle.
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that