Case Study

Getting in, getting on. . .? Misreading issues related to access and ethics in a
small-scale enterprise
Lefteris was a Greek student studying for a one-year Master’s degree in International
Management at a United Kingdom university. Now halfway through his course he was thinking
about possible dissertation topics. In his hometown in Greece, Lefteris’ uncle had a factory that
made patio (terrace) doors and window frames for both the domestic and export markets. Lefteris
was very friendly with his uncle and had worked in the accounts and marketing sections at the
factory during holidays from university. Through this work he had got to know some of the
managers, who had always been very supportive and kind to him. Aware of the problems
associated with gaining access to organisations to collect primary data, Lefteris decided to base
his dissertation on a case study of his uncle’s company.
On the basis of the modules he had studied, Lefteris had become particularly interested in
the future enlargement of the European Union and the challenges this was likely to create for
Greek companies, and he wondered whether he could link this to a dissertation on his uncle’s
company. Since commencing his studies, he had come to realise that his uncle’s company was
faced with major competitive challenges, which had to be overcome if it were to survive. He
wondered whether this might be possible by better marketing or by entering into some form of
strategic alliance with either a Greek or foreign company. Eventually he thought of a working
title for his dissertation, which he could refine later: ‘Can the use of marketing or strategic
alliances help SMEs survive the competitive challenges of greater European Union (EU)
integration and enlargement? A case study of a Greek SME.’
Lefteris realised that he had to start his case study research with clear research questions.
After discussion with his tutor he felt that the main issue he was trying to clarify at this stage was
the extent to which his uncle’s company was planning its marketing strategies, and how these
were integrated into the company’s corporate plan. These findings could subsequently be linked
to EU enlargement.
Fired up by his research methods course, Lefteris was keen to use some of the new
research techniques he had learnt about. He had enjoyed the class on participant observation and
felt, as he had excellent access, it would be a good idea to use this technique alongside a survey
of the employees, and some depth interviews with the managers he knew. Lefteris decided to
return to Greece for the Easter vacation to start his primary research with his employee survey
and the first of his observations, completing the rest of his data collection at the start of the
summer vacation.
On arrival in Greece, Lefteris found that his uncle was happy to grant him access to the
company, and instructed all his managers to cooperate with him. To Lefteris’ surprise, although
his uncle asked him detailed questions about what he had learned about business and marketing
planning, he did not appear particularly interested in the research topic. However, his uncle did
insist that he was told the results of the research before it was written up, arguing that he did not
want his company to appear foolish in the eyes of the UK academic and business community.
Lefteris promised to do this.
Lefteris decided to start with his employee survey, as he thought it would take a long
time to analyse and write up. He knew from his research methods course that being interviewed
by the owner’s nephew could cause the employees psychological stress. He therefore decided to
give out ‘anonymous’ self-completion questionnaires to all the employees and ask them to put
answered questionnaires in an empty box, which he would collect later. However, in order to
ensure that he could send a follow-up letter and questionnaire to those who did not respond,
Lefteris decided to number each questionnaire discreetly (tactfully).
The questionnaire asked employees for personal details such as age, sex, and length of
service with the company, and then explored the respondents’ attitudes to greater competition
and the extent to which in their view it could be a threat. Finally, it asked questions about a range
of measures that might help improve the company’s ability to meet competition. Lefteris had
drawn on his reading of the academic literature for these. They ranged from quality circles and
team working to better internal communications and increased expenditure on advertising.
While waiting for the completed questionnaires to be returned, Lefteris started his first
observation in the marketing section. Although he had worked there before, people no longer
seemed particularly friendly, and tended to stop talking when he walked into a room. This made
observation of meetings and work conversations extremely difficult.
A few days later, Lefteris’ uncle called him into his office. He told his nephew that,
although he fully supported his research efforts, in the real world business school theories are a
waste of time and never got him anywhere. He went on to say that the production manager had
warned him that the survey was upsetting some of the employees, who saw it as evidence that the
company was in difficulties. Some of them were now asking difficult questions and requesting
consultation about the future. His uncle hoped that the survey might reveal who these agitators
were, and he was looking forward to seeing the results as promised.
Unfortunately, the employees were right. The accounts for the first quarter of the year
released a few days later confirmed the trend of a dramatic fall in sales. In a subsequent meeting,
Lefteris’ uncle blamed this on the marketing section. He told Lefteris that he ‘owed it to the rest
of the family’ to find out what was really going on in the marketing section and to report to him
as soon as possible on the results of his research there.
Questions
1 What are the key ethical issues raised in this case study?
2 Should Lefteris continue with his research?
3 With hindsight, how could Lefteris have designed his research to avoid some of the ethical
issues outlined above?