Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Management
Edition: 2nd 2007 (Revised)
List price: $36.25
30 day, 100% satisfaction guarantee
If an item you ordered from TextbookRush does not meet your expectations due to an error on our part, simply fill out a return request and then return it by mail within 30 days of ordering it for a full refund of item cost.
Learn more about our returns policy
Description: This Second Edition of TAKING SIDES: CLASHING VIEWS IN MANAGEMENT presents current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. An instructor’s manual with testing material is available for each volume. USING TAKING SIDES IN THE CLASSROOM is also an excellent instructor resource with practical suggestions on incorporating this effective approach in the classroom. Each TAKING SIDES reader features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites and is supported by our student website, www.mhcls.com/online.
Rush Rewards U
You have reached 400 XP and carrot coins. That is the daily max!
Limited time offer:
Get the first one free!
All the information you need in one place! Each Study Brief is a summary of one specific subject; facts, figures, and explanations to help you learn faster.
List price: $36.25
Copyright year: 2007
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Publication date: 10/6/2006
Size: 5.75" wide x 9.00" long x 1.00" tall
|Ethical Issues for Managers|
|Do Corporations Have a Responsibility to Society that Extends Beyond Merely Maximizing Profit? YES: Robert D. Hay and Edmund R. Gray, from ldquo;Introduction to Social Responsibility,rdquo; in David Keller, man. ed., Ethics and Values: Basic Readings in Theory and Practice (Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002) NO: Alexei M. Marcoux, from ldquo;Business Ethics Gone Wrong,rdquo; Cato Institute, (July 24, 2000) Robert D. Hay and Edmund R. Gray believe that corporations should be held accountable for more than profit maximization. Their argument is based on stakeholder theory and is presented in the form of an historical account of the evolution of managerial thinking on this important topic. In answering "no" to this question, Alexei Marcoux presents a frontal attack on stakeholder theory. Consistent with the views of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, Marcoux argues that the very nature of stakeholder theory is immoral and can only lead to disastrous results for all involved.|
|Is the Corporate Strategy of Downsizing Unethical? YES: Larry Gross, from ldquo;Downsizing: Are Employers Reneging on Their Social Promise?rdquo; CPCU Journal (Summer 2001) NO: Joseph T. Gilbert, from ldquo;Sorrow and Guilt: An Ethical Analysis of Layoffs,rdquo; SAM Advanced Management Journal (vol. 65, 2000) Larry Gross contends that downsizing violates the psychological and social contracts implicit in the employer-employee relationship since there is an implied sense of job security afforded the employee as long as he or she is productively advancing the goals of the organization. Downsizing productive employees is a clear violation of this contract and, therefore, immoral. Professor Joseph Gilbert analyzes the ethicality of downsizing through the application of three prominent approaches to the study of ethics: utilitarianism, rights and duties, and justice and fairness. Gilbert concludes that, with one notable exception, downsizing is an ethically valid and morally responsible corporate behavior.|
|Is Bluffing During Negotiations Unethical? YES: Chris Provis, from ldquo;Ethics, Deception and Labor Negotiation,rdquo; Journal of Business Ethics (Kluwar Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2000) NO: Fritz Allhof, from ldquo;Business Bluffing Reconsidered,rdquo; Journal of Business Ethics (Kluwar Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2003) Ethics scholar Chris Provis examines bluffing within the context of labor negotiations and concludes that it does indeed constitute unethical behavior. Bluffing, he argues, is deception and therefore, unethical, regardless of whether it occurs in or out of the negotiation process. University of California, Santa Barbara philosopher Fritz Allhoff presents a clever and unique defense of bluffing in business negotiations. The central tenet in Allhoffrsquo;s position is that certain roles that we are required to assume allow us to morally justify behaviors that might otherwise be considered immoral.|
|Should Insider Trading Be Legalized? YES: Robert B. Thompson, from ldquo;Insider Trading, Investor Harm, and Executive Compensation,rdquo; Case Western Reserve Law Review (Winter 1999) NO: Stephen Bainbridge, from ldquo;Why Regulate Insider Trading?rdquo; Tech Central Station (September 8, 2004) Legal scholar Robert B. Thompson presents Mannersquo;s argument on insider regulation. Thompson then provides us wit|