Purposive Communication

Mr. Scott was hired as Yahoo’s new CEO in

early 2012 in an attempt to reverse the
struggling company’s fortunes. By May, a
shareholder activist group alleged that
Scott had embellished his resume by claiming
he had a degree in computer science, along
with an accounting degree. He has only an
accounting degree.
SOLUTION 1
Disciplinary
Action
OUTCOME 1
Mr. Scott will be held accountable for the
falsification of his bachelor degree and will
receive disciplinary action. Having a company
disciplinary action in place will take away a lot
of uncertainty from employees, and help
ensure that the company or organization has a
fair process that treats everyone equally.
IMPACT 1
 Positive

• Mr. Scott will learn his lessons. He will know the consequences of lying on a
resume. False information in a job application is considered fraud.

• The company’s image will receive positive comments from the people
because they were able to take action right away on the said problem.

Negative
• Lying on your resume could cost you the job in the long run, either when the
employer realizes you are unable to carry out the role sufficiently, or when
they find out the truth about your supposed qualifications.

• The company’s image will be destroyed because in the first place, they are
responsible for hiring the employee.
VALUES 1
Doing a Disciplinary Action violates the Principle of Doing no Harm.
The principle stated as “do no harm” requires that you avoid doing
things that harm other people, or that damage their projects, efforts
or property. The Solution No. 1 violates the principle because it
harms someone (employee) It harmed the employee and others in
direct and indirect ways. The principle of doing no harm counsels
careful, responsible action. Those who genuinely strive to live in a
thoughtful, considerate manner generally avoid violating this
principle.
The Solution No. 2 uphelds the Principle of Fairness
(Josephson,2010) Ethical executives and fair and just in all
dealings; they do not exercise power arbitrarily, and do
not use overreaching nor indecent means to gain or
maintain any advantage nor take undue advantage of
another’s mistakes or difficulties. The company’s decision
of having a disciplinary action is fair for both the
employee and the company.
SOLUTION 2
There should be a
due process.
OUTCOME 2
The company will be able to know the
details as to why Mr.Scott has done a
terrible fault. On the other hand, Mr.
Scott will also have the chance to
explain himself
IMPACT 2
 Positive
• Mr. Scott will acquire his right to free expression. Free expression should not be
denied at the workplace unless it is absolutely necessary for furthering the
employer’s legitimate process

• The company will serve as a model to other companies because they were able
to give a due-process before reaching their desired decision.

Negative

• The issue will take longer as expected. In the advancement of technology, the
said issue will be a trend and will be talked about to many netizens. In which, the
company’s image will also be ruined
VALUES 2
The Solution Number 2 upheld the Principle of Evidence
(Druker,2017) Every decision the company takes must be well
thought out and backed by evidence. Decisions should
depend on some judgement which is backed by evidence.
Hastily taken decisions that are not backed by proper
evidence often turn out to be inaccurate. That is why the
company decided to have a due-process.
SOLUTION 3
Remove him immediately
from his position.
OUTCOME 3
Mr. Scott will not have a job anymore which is a result
from committing fraud. The company then will look for
a new CEO making sure that the commit their mistake
again. From this time, they will double check the
resume before hiring them to the position.
IMPACT 3
 Positive
1. It will put an end to the issue right away

Negative

1. Mr. Scott will be blacklisted to other companies because of making a false

information on his resume. With that he will have a hard time looking for a
new job.

2. The company’s image will be ruined as well because they were not able to
give other solutions other than firing him. They have not given a chance for
him to speak/free to expression.
The Solution Number 3 upheld the Principle of
Definition(Druker,2017) For the correct decision to be made,
Company is aware of the exact problem. So the first principle is to
exactly pinpoint the exact problem that seems to be the issue.
Once the real problem has been correctly identified and defined,
the Company can work towards solving it.
VALUES 3
Removing Mr. Scott immediately from his position upheld
the Principle of doing no harm. Clearly, Mr. Scott is the
person being harmed here but then it is for the Company to
avoid the worsening of others as well as the Company’s
image. This duty is responsible for social harmony. Unless
we respect the well-being of others, we cannot justifiably
expect them to respect ours.
EVALUATION
 SOLUTION NO. 1
DISCIPLINARY ACTION

SOLUTION NO.2
TO HAVE A DUE-PROCESS

SOLUTION NO.3
TO REMOVE MR.SCOTT IMMEDIATELY FROM
HIS POSITION
DECISION
 SOLUTION NUMBER 2:

There should be a Due-process

 Sources

https://www.toppr.com/guides/business-management-and-
entrepreneurship/planning/principles-in-decision-making/

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=p-
vGP74nUvcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepag
e&q&f=false