Please complete the ppt of section 3

humanities question and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.

1.Research the assigned organization
2. Describe the internal culture using several relevant factors discussed in Chapter 4. Based
on this culture, what do you consider to be the ideal employee for this company?
3. Consider the behavior of this company as described in the article linked below (and
please find other articles or sources to further learn about the actions).
a. Does this behavior reflect, or is it against, the company’s culture? How/why not?
b. What message(s) are the leaders sending by having taken this action?
4. Using the ethical decision-making model (EDM) of Chapters 2-3, analyze what else the
company might have done besides the act described in the article. Be sure to consider
each element of the EDM through comparing and weighing options and alternatives.
5. Ultimately, considering your EDM analysis, do you agree with the company’s action, or
do you think another action would have been better? Consider what you have learned
from Chapters 1-4 and 6-7 in your analysis

Logistics and Requirements
 You need to present using no more than 15 slides (Powerpoint), including a title page and
a Works Cited page. No smaller than 16-point font may be used except for your Works
Cited page.
 Balance in your discussion is key. Consider that there are multiple perspectives.
 Include a Works Cited list at the back of your presentation. You must include at least 3
quality citations other than the link below. You may cite to the book but be sure to note
the page(s) consulted.
 Each student must contribute significantly. If I have reason to believe that one person is
not contributing fully, I will discount their grade accordingly based upon peer feedback.
Teamwork makes the dream work!
 Spelling, grammar, and punctuation must be accurate. RU policies on academic integrity,
including identifying sources and using quotes apply. Do not over-use quotes.
 This assignment is worth 15% of your overall grade, inclusive of peer feedback.
Organizations
McKinsey – Group 8
Hamby, Chris and Forsythe, Michael. “Behind the Scenes, McKinsey Guided Companies at the
Center of the Opioid Crisis”, New York Times (online), June 29, 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/business/mckinsey-opioid-crisis-
opana.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-
opioid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_3&block=storyline_top_links_recirc
I attached the Word file that is something we wrote for the Mckinsey and you can go through it and write the ppt based on this.AndA] here is our ppt link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18jKPFW-Wye…
Requirements: ppt slides
Group 8 McKinsey & Company
The issue of ethical and social responsibility in the business arena is multifaceted. Despite vast research insinuating the importance of ethical behavior, organizations continue to get caught up in scandals that ruin their reputation. The influence of internal culture on the problem is significant. Moreover, organization leaders are presented with immense pressure to deliver short-term financial results to satisfy shareholders and investors. In such cases, culture can either lead to or deter wrong decision-making. The scandal where McKinsey & Company took part in encouraging companies to sell drugs that led to the opioid crisis in the United States offers a profound glimpse into the complex interplay between ethics, leadership, and culture. To attain a deeper understanding of the issue, examining the company’s internal culture and connecting it to its behavior while considering the ethical decision-making model is important.
McKinsey & Company’s internal culture can be understood based on its purpose, mission, and values. The company’s purpose is to create positive and enduring change in the world while its mission is to help clients attain a distinctive, lasting, and substantial improvement in performance. It also strives to observe high ethical standards, put the client’s interest first, maintain high standards in its operations, and uphold an independent perspective. Such actions are considered to help the company not only adhere to high professional standards but also ensure the client’s performance grows significantly. Unlike the traditional approach, one can argue that McKinsey & Company promotes a values-based culture whereby employees are required to conform to the statements of values and principles as opposed to simply obeying the laws and regulations that govern its industry. Notably, the company’s leadership can also be used to define its internal culture. Hartman, DesJardins, and MacDonald (2018 p97) indicate that leaders contribute to “unspoken, yet influential standards and expectations.” McKinsey & Company recommends that it is important for employees to make fast and good decisions given that the current business environment is fast-paced. Kevin Sneader, the company’s CEO between 2018 and 2021 described himself as a traditionist when it comes to values and an innovator when it comes to implementing tasks as such employees are encouraged to make their own decisions while upholding organization values. In reference to Hofstede’s model, empowering employees to make decisions creates a low power distance. An ideal employee at the company would be an innovative person who is quick to make decisions that uphold the company’s purpose while maintaining its values.
Despite having a well-defined value-based culture, McKinsey & Company became involved in advising companies that would play a profound role in shaping the opioid crisis in the United States. This points to the idea that integrating the values into the firm’s culture was ineffective. The report by the New York Times defines various unethical behavior including lack of transparency when dealing with public health concerns, and targeting vulnerable populations. After the Food and Drugs Administration rejected Purdue’s new version of OxyContin, it consulted McKinsey which couched the company’s officials on how to deal with the FDA. The company also helped Endo maneuver tax inversion which allowed it to become a large manufacturer of generic opioids. Despite the compelling evidence, McKinsey & Company denied any wrongdoing. After the report on its involvement in the crisis emerged, the organization believed its past opioid work was “lawful” and agreeing to make a settlement was not an admission of liability or wrongdoing. Although it later acknowledged its involvement in the crisis, the denial is a crucial aspect that further depicts the company culture.
Overall, it is evident that McKinsey & Company’s behavior does not fully reflect its company culture. First, one of its driving elements and the aspect that helped it attain its position as a leading global consultation company it’s the ability and dedication to make other companies attain success. However, a conflict of interest emerged as it was advising both pharmaceutical companies and government agencies and it agreed to promote harmful products for financial gain. Hartman, DesJardins, and MacDonald (2018 p108) indicate that “if the goal of corporate culture is to cultivate values, expectations, beliefs, and patterns of behavior that best and most effectively support ethical decision-making, it becomes the primary responsibility of corporate leadership to steward this effort.” By supporting unethical behavior, the leaders at McKinsey & Company passed the message that it was okay to make unethical decisions as long as they were helping the organization attain its goals to help clients succeed. Furthermore, the behavior went against its ethical standards and it failed to make a general positive impact.
Using the ethical decision-making model (EDM), it is important to evaluate why leaders at McKinsey & Company engaged in unethical behavior and what could have been done to prevent the issue. Based on the report issued by the New York Times, the company was facing an ethical dilemma. On one hand, its position including involvement with the FDA allowed it to gain perspective on how companies can navigate regulations easily, however, this would result in the development of products that were potentially harmful to the public. Ideally, possessing vast documents and data that allowed it to offer advice to the pharmaceutical companies meant it had gathered relevant facts regarding the use of opioids. Hartman, DesJardins, and MacDonald (2018 p90) indicate that “It is critical at this stage that we do not unintentionally bias our later decision by gathering only those facts in support of one particular outcome.” However, the facts may have been biased which contributed to focus on information that supported one outcome, that is, ensuring the companies saw an increase in sales and profit. Apart from determining all the facts and identifying the ethical dilemma, the company should have examined stakeholders that would have been affected by the decision. This involves asking questions such as what are their relation to the company and what is their power over the results or decision. The other step is to consider alternative decisions to resolve the conflict including those that are less obvious. The company should then compare the alternatives including how different stakeholders will be affected. A decision that defines a clear plan, how it is going to be implemented, and what ought to be done if something unexpected were to happen also ought to be made. The model also suggests having a mechanism for assessment of the decision facilitates making appropriate changes.
McKinsey & Company limited its inquiry when identifying stakeholders to those whom it owes a duty. It chose to help the pharmaceutical companies increase sales without considering how the patients would be affected and how the government would respond. Ideally, some of the possible alternatives would have been developing medication that complied with the regulations. Once it made a decision, it also failed to monitor and learn its effects until the government agencies identified its link to the opioid crisis.
Ultimately, I disagree with McKinsey & Company’s action. The company failed to respect human rights by promoting the use of drugs that would be harmful to people’s health. In addition, it treated individuals as merely a means to an end as opposed to an end in themselves. While one can acknowledge that there was an ethical dilemma to earn profit by making the clients successful, the company should have considered how other stakeholders would be affected and taken alternative decisions. To mitigate the problem, the company ought to align its values with the internal culture.

Reference
Hartman, L., DesJardins, J. & MacDonald, C. (2018). Business Ethics Decision Making for Personal Integrity and Social Responsibility. McGraw-Hill Education.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *