Case 1

Workplace Drug Abuse

When Amber Peetz started her job as an administrative assistant at a five-person public relations
firm, she seemed to come with no liabilities. "She got here on time, worked steadily, dressed
professionally, and always double-checked her work," recalls Liz Leslie, owner of the agency.
"She was meticulous and reliable in every way." About a year into her tenure, she began arriving
late and calling in sick often, especially right around the time she got paid. She began borrowing
and failing to repay money, and then started showing a short temper on the phone with
customers. After being found in the ladies’ room sniffing white powder, she was confronted
about a cocaine problem, and reacted by quitting immediately, leaving a hole in the organization
for months before a replacement could be found and replaced.

Questions
1. What kind of policy should the agency have in order to evaluate and reprimand
employees for poor job performance?
- The agency should have an evaluation or a monthly review of the employees’
performance to see if they are getting better or not. If their performance are poor, observe
them first and check the signs of such behaviour and then communicate or consult them
directly and see the possible reasons that would be able for us to understand their
situation that may or may not directly affecting their work performance. A close
supervision over the employees’ performance can be good to keep them in check and if
persist they could be reprimanded systematically.

2. What kind of drug policy should the agency have in order to deter employees from using
drugs?
- To think that drugs are now easier to get on our hands, the firm should have a mandatory drug
test before an employee can be employed and start working. And for safety measures, a yearly
drug test or check-up should be done to keep the employees in check and verify they are not
suffering from any effects of drugs that could hinder a smooth work in the firm and harm the
organization in any other ways. In the above case, the firm was not fast enough to react to the
sudden change of their employee and thus suffered greatly. I think the firm should also consider
to give priority to the health and status of each of their employees, after all they are the heart of a
working firm.
Case 2

The CEO of Starbucks and the Practice of Ethical Leadership

One year after becoming CEO of Starbucks, Kevin Johnson faced a leadership test when two
black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks.  The men were waiting to meet a business
associate, but they didn’t purchase anything while they were waiting. The store manager asked
them to leave, and they refused, explaining that they were there to meet someone. The manager
called the police because the men refused to leave, and the police arrested them.
Another patron at Starbucks recorded the arrest on her cell phone, and it quickly went viral. In an
interview after the arrest, the woman who took the video mentions that she had been sitting there
for a while, and she wasn’t asked to leave even though she didn’t order anything.  Additionally,
the video shows the business associate of the black men show up during the arrest, and he asks
the manager and the police what the men had done wrong. The general public and those who
witnessed the arrest labeled it as discriminatory and racist.

This happened on a Thursday and the following Monday, Johnson said that the manager no
longer worked at the store.  The arrests led to protests and sit ins at the Philadelphia Starbucks
the days following the event.

In his apology statement and follow up video release shortly after the arrests, Johnson said, “The
video shot by customers is very hard to watch and the actions in it are not representative of our
Starbucks Mission and Values.  Creating an environment that is both safe and welcoming for
everyone is paramount for every store.  Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad
outcome—the basis for the call to the Philadelphia police department was wrong.”  

Before the incident, Starbucks had no companywide policy about asking customers to leave, and
the decision was left to the discretion of each store manager. Because of this flexible policy,
Starbucks had become a community hub--a place where anyone could sit without being required
to spend money. Johnson mentioned this community in his apology when he said Starbucks
works to create an environment that is “both safe and welcoming for everyone.”

Also in his apology, Johnson outlined the investigation he and the company would undertake.
The apology detailed actionable steps Starbucks leadership would follow to learn from the
situation, including meeting with community stakeholders to learn what they could have done
better.  Johnson took full responsibility for the actions of his employees, and he acknowledged
that Starbucks customers were hurt by the arrests. Johnson acknowledged that employees needed
more training, including about when to call authorities, and that the company needed to conduct
a thorough analysis of the practices that lead to this incident.

After issuing his apology, Johnson went to Philadelphia and met with the two men face to face to
involve them in dialogue on what Starbucks needed to do differently.

The week following the arrests, Starbucks announced it would temporarily close 8,000 stores to
conduct unconscious bias training, which they did on May 29, 2018.  A month after the arrests,
Starbucks released a new “Use of Third Place Policy,” which states that anyone can use
Starbucks and its facilities without making a purchase; it also explains what managers should do
if a customer becomes disruptive.  Additionally, the policy says that Starbucks seeks to create “a
culture of warmth and belonging where everyone is welcome. This policy is intended to help
maintain the third place environment in alignment with our mission ‘to inspire and nurture the
human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.’”

1. How is Johnson practicing ethical leadership?

- In the above case, we can see that Johnson is showing accountability of the problem
that his subordinate started. He was quick to respond and also to apologized for what
 his manager had done and also came in person to speak to the two black men himself.
By this, he shows a strong will and accountability as a leader and that as a leader, a
failure of his subordinate reflects for his mas well. He said that he need to re-train his
employees the right way to avoid such thing to ever happen again. But in this rash
decisions, he immediately fired the manager and closed about 8000 store of
Starbucks. I think he could have been more patient with the manager and not fired
him on the spot for he may had his reasons to act such. Furthermore, the closed 8000
stores could mean a lot of people lost their jobs, he could re-train employees without
closing though. Nonetheless, his ethical leadership is good and he knows how to set
things right after such mess.

CASE 3
Case on Executive Integrity     

Ann Skeet
Below are three examples of CEOs whose leadership of their firm has been called into question
over matters of their personal integrity and behavior.  Issues have included their personal
political positions and contributions, personal behavior and relationships with employees while
CEO, and illegal and inappropriate behavior in college.

Mozilla
“Mozilla was built on the mission to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the Web.
Every day, we bring together over half a billion users and thousands of contributors from more
than 80 countries to advance the cause outlined in the Mozilla Manifesto.  The web is a vital
public resource and Mozilla exists to protect it. That is what we do at Mozilla, our singular point
of focus.” --From Mozilla’s blog Q and A regarding the resignation of Brendan Eich

Brendan Eich was a co-founder of Mozilla, an organization set up as a nonprofit foundation,

passionate about its purpose.  Eich’s previous political support for the Defense of Marriage Act,
which prior to 2015 defined marriage on the federal level as the union between one man and one
woman, was well known by the board and employees prior to his appointment as CEO.  What
wasn’t known was how strongly employees and outsiders would react to a perceived disconnect
between Eich’s personal values and the values of the company. In spite of posting about his
commitment to continuing the organization’s support of the LGBTQ+ community through
various policies and benefits and apology for “causing pain,” the issue did not die down. Eich
made his own decision to resign as CEO and declined the board’s offer to take another C-level
position in the company.

American Apparel
“Passion, innovation & ethical practices for the clothing industry. That's American Apparel.”--
From American Apparel’s website under “About Us”
American Apparel founder Dov Charney has never apologized for using sex to sell clothes.  In
fact, it’s been central to his company’s strategy and marketing from Day One. He has also long
acknowledged his personal behavior is strange and he is his own worst enemy.  

For example, 10 years ago, “Charney gave a now infamous interview with Claudine Ko, a
reporter for Jane magazine, during which he masturbated, with her consent, while carrying on a
conversation about business. He engaged in oral sex with an employee with Ko nearby, too”
(Bloomberg Businessweek, July 9, 2014). Also, in 2006, American Apparel starting asking
employees to sign a form indicating that they knew they were coming to work in a sexually
charged environment.

According to board co-chairmen, in mid-2014, Charney was removed as chairman by the board
pending termination following a 30-day notice clause in his contract.  The board first gave him
the choice to resign if he gave up voting rights to his 27 percent share of the company. In that
scenario, he would have received a four-year, multi-million dollar consulting contract.  Officially
removed for violating the company’s sexual harassment policy and misusing company funds,
Charney refused to go quietly, which threw the company’s ownership and governance into play.
Hedge fund Standard General stepped in with a cash infusion for the company following a loan
call by another investment firm after Charney’s ouster. Five of the seven board directors
voluntarily agreed to step down, and Standard General agreed to add three new directors.
Charney stayed on as a strategic consultant but was eventually fired as CEO in December 2014.

Snapchat
“Deletion should be the default.”--Snapchat’s mission statement

At the end of May 2014, details of sordid emails from Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel’s college
days were released to the media. Trouble is, his college years were only four years prior to these
emails being released, because, in 2014, he was only 24. The e-mails detailed illegal drug use,
underage drinking, and misogynistic behavior, including urinating on one after she passed out
following sex, and harassing women who he believed were overweight.  Some found elements of
his emails racist as well.

Spiegel’s privileged background and lavish lifestyle had always received plenty of press. After
the email release, he began getting more press for his bad behavior than his app.  He apologized
immediately following the release of the e-mails saying, “I’m obviously mortified and
embarrassed that my idiotic emails during my fraternity days were made public. I have no
excuse. I’m sorry I wrote them at the time and I was a jerk to have written them.  They in no way
reflect who I am today or my views towards women.” Spiegel remains CEO and was responsible
for taking the company public in 2017.

Leader Company Issue Outcome

Brendan Mozilla Personal support of Prop 8 Resignation

Eich
Dov  Charney American Sexual relationships with employees Dismissed as CEO in
Apparel resulting in lawsuits for charges of December of 2014 and
 harassment, misuse of company funds for removed as chairman prior to
personal expenses his termination
Evan Spiegel Snapchat Misogynistic behavior, drug use prior to Still in place
serving as CEO
Questions to Consider

1. Are there ethical issues involved in all of these cases?  Which ones and why?

Of all the three leaders that were dicussed in the cases, each and everyone of them were involved
doing unethical behavior. Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla, had different personal values with
the company his working with. For Eich, his personal support of the Defense of Marriage Act,
was by his standards acceptable behavior for him. But to other people and the company it's
considered unethical in their beliefs. The real issue really is that the CEO continued to promote
his own personal beliefs despite knowing the consequences the company would have if their
leaders had conflicting values. He didn't consider that many of their users might be supporters of
the LGBTQ+ community, and his support of anti gay marriage bill might reflect to the overall
image of Mozilla. Dov Charney, founder of American Apparel, clearly showed unethical
behavior. His sexual harassment to employees and misuse of company funds affects the working
environment of the company, where he truly deserved the dismissal from the company. Evan
Spiegel, Snapchat founder, despite being grown up and have different behavior compared to the
past is still paying to the harm he had caused in the past. From illegal drug use to harassment
towards women, his past misdeeds still haunts him to the present.

2. How important to a company’s investors and shareholders is the personal behavior of the
CEO?  Do people have to like him/her for the company to be successful?

A CEO's behavior truly affects the work environment and their behavior is a reflection of the
company they work with. If a corporate leader had unacceptable behavior, the employees or
other co-workers would be disturbed by this and it might affect their work performance and
efficiency. When we take into account outsiders, shareholders or customers rely on trust and
honesty for their commitment to the company. Having unacceptable behavior would destroy
their image of the company and dismantle the people's trust. We don't necessarily have to like or
leaders in order for the dinosaur to be successful. It might still reach success, but if we were to
have corporate leaders that we really trust and truly rely on, the company's success might take on
unprecedented heights.

3. Does mission matter when assessing gaps between a leader’s values and the organization
he or she is running?

Yes it does, and we can clearly see why on the case shown about Brendan Eich. If the leader and
the corporation would have conflicting values, problems would arise that is unlikely to be
resolved. Leaders can be considered the face of the company, and their behavior would be
mistaken to be the mission or the values of the company. If the leader would have these
unacceptable behavior it would put a bad image to the company and would make them lose the
trust that they had.
 4. Should boards consider risky personal behavior in hiring executives?  What should
boards do if the risky personal behavior comes from the founding CEO?

The board should consider the personal behavior of the executives that they hire. In the examples
above, having leaders that have dissatisfactory behavior only led to scandal and chaos in the
working environment. What happens mostly in our society is that when dealing with bad
behaviors of CEOs, most just try to cover it up. This would be dangerous for the company, since
this cover up would raise questions and it might be a cause for scrutiny of the shareholders and
the public. I think it would be best to either have a vote for the dismissal of the CEO or having a
public statement to assure the public that the actions of the CEO do not reflect the views or
values of the company

Case 4

Facebook and Our Fake News Problem. Who is responsible for ensuring trustworthy news?

The 2016 election season generated many headlines, some of which are notable for being
blatantly false. Fake news ranged from, “the Pope endorsed Donald Trump” all the way to
“Hilary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop.” 

Did “fake news” influence the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election? While the answer
is unclear, one thing is certain. The rise of fake news has reached unprecedented levels and has
raised serious concerns about how citizens receive their news and form opinions. 

The increase in fake news has several sources. Social media platforms like Facebook gave these
stories the same visibility as news publications, such as those from the New York Times or Wall
Street Journal. Moreover, these posts often had higher engagement rates (comments and
reactions) resulting in them receiving even higher visibility and prevalence in users’ news feeds. 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg initially downplayed the problem, calling it a “pretty crazy
idea” that fake news on Facebook influenced the election. Zuckerberg has since begun to address
the fake news issue, but warns, “We must proceed very carefully… and must be extremely
cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.” 

The Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics with four principles: seek truth and
report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable and transparent. But the
transition to online platforms has fundamentally changed journalism. Google and Facebook
control 80 percent of ad revenues; the same revenue source that news publishers depend on.
Moreover, more than 40 percent of people now get their news from social media networks –
making Facebook a de facto middleman in people’s intake of news. 

Facebook is taking the problem seriously, albeit with a great deal of caution. They have
introduced efforts to help users spot fake news and inject indicators of trust (disputed tags) into
their posts in partnership with a few institutions. They have also banned fake news sites from
advertising on the network. 
 1. Does Facebook have an obligation to address the fake news problem? If so, what should
be done about it?

Facebook does have an obligation to address the number of fake news that pop up on its website.
Since it is one of the most popular social media sites online, numerous people could read any
articles or advertisements that potentially contain fake news. These people can share the fake
news to their friends online either by reposting it or messaging other individuals. Fake news can
spread like a wildfire if left unchecked since more people will believe the lies being told with the
related news.

The best thing that Facebook can do is to monitor and control all articles that Facebook users
post on their platform. They can review these websites or advertisements that sound fishy if they
have no credible sources. Facebook must do these things since their platform is the one location
where many people can produce and spread fake news. If they are successful in cleaning up any
fake news being posted, their reputation can potentially increase as their platform becomes better
for people.

Case 5
Targeting a Broken Heart

Irina Raicu
In 2017, Facebook’s “People Insights” blog published a post titled “What Mends a Broken Heart
on Facebook.” In it, the company’s researchers detailed insights that they had gathered by
examining “how the break-up moment influenced the online behaviors of people across France,
the Netherlands, Poland, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom who indicated on
Facebook that they recently went through a break up.”

One of their findings was that “there could be a gap between the break up itself and the Facebook
post announcing it. During the two weeks before and the two weeks after their break-up
announcement,” they explained, users “accepted more than one invitation to an event 40% more
than [during] the 60 days before and 60 days after their announcement.”

The researchers also noted that “’Healing,’ ‘detox,’ ‘drowning sorrows,’ ‘binge watching’

and ‘suffering’ are just some of the words and phrases that are more pronounced in men’s posts
before they mark themselves ‘Single.’ The same types of words and phrases are more
pronounced in women’s posts on the actual day of their announcement.”

As to what helps people get over a breakup, Facebook researchers wrote that “[g]aining new
experiences…  seems to be more therapeutic than buying things.” Under the subhead “What it
means for marketers,” the post then asks, “How can brands be a part of the journey to help mend
people’s broken hearts?” Suggested answers include “Empathize with them” and “Offer them
new experiences.” The post concludes by encouraging potential Facebook advertising clients:
“Tracking signals of intent to travel, experience new things or take up a new hobby can help you
reach this group with a relevant ad at the right time.”

1. Is it ethical for Facebook to mine its users’ posts for signals that those users are about to
go through a break up? Is it ethical for the company to then help its clients target their ads
based on this research? 

It is unethical for Facebook to look through their users' data and see if they are about to go
through breakups. Actually, the act of browsing one's data and posts is extremely questionable
alone. Even if the reason of this act is to tailor their users' wants and help them go through
breakups, this does mean that Facebook is constantly checking what their users post on their
platform.
Imagine if a user was not going through a breakup and was just searching for singles. Suddenly,
advertisements about other single people show up on their newsfeed. Not all ordinary people
would accept these advertisements because some would feel weird. They could think that
Facebook was spying on them. This is why it is unethical for Facebook to tailor their
advertisements to their users' recent posts.
2. Is what Facebook is doing different from what other companies do?

Facebook is not the only company that does the act of browsing through their users' posts and
searches. Google and YouTube are other companies that suggest advertisements related to their
users' recent activities. When one searches something on Google, usually advertisements that are
similar to their searches will pop up soon. The same happens with YouTube only in the form of
related videos to their searches.

3. How might Facebook’s actions be perceived through the ethical prisms of utilitarianism,
rights, justice, virtue, and the common good?

Under the utilitarian approach, what Facebook is doing is ethical. Since utilitarianism seeks to
provide the greatest good for the people, allowing advertisements for people that are about to
break up is a good moral action.
Under the rights approach, Facebook is highly unethical in their actions. People have
fundamental rights, and one of them is the right to privacy. The act of looking through one's data
already breaks their right to privacy.
Under the justice approach, Facebook is ethical in their actions. Since they tailor users'
advertisements to what they search, everyone is equally treated the same way under their
platform.
Under the common good approach, Facebook is viewed as having ethical actions. No one is
disadvantaged while browsing Facebook since they will keep receiving advertisements related to
their searches.
Under the virtue approach, Facebook does unethical things. Honesty and respect are examples of
virtue, and both are being violated if Facebook keeps scanning what their users search and
tailoring their advertisements about them.