3.2 Discussion: Borland Case Final Response

1. Review the rubric to make sure you understand the criteria for earning your grade.
2. Navigate to Discussion 1.3 and Discussion 2.3 to review threads for this ongoing conversation.
3. If your initial statement post from Workshop One was replied to by a student with differing viewpoints, you need to respond to that student.  
4. If for some reason your initial statement was not responded to, then go in and help defend or bolster a fellow student’s original positions.
5. In either case (Instruction 3 or 4), you will need to copy and paste the posts that you are responding to in your thread prior to composing your rebuttal.
6. Summarize your ethical position of the Borland case.  Emphasize the strengths of your position.
7. The rebuttal response must be at least 100 words and is due by the end of the workshop. 

GettingStarted

Discussions are an opportunity for you to demonstrate your

scholarly approach to the course materials and your ability to think

critically about the question and the material itself. To develop a

personal ethical framework, you must be able to synthesize all

sides to an ethical issue. In your final response, you will need to

choose a student who responded to your initial post in Workshop

Two and summarize your ethical position on the Borland Case.

Upon successful completion of this discussion, you will be

able to:

● Distinguish leadership actions that cast light from those that
cast shadows.

● Evaluate organizations in terms of their ethical behavior.

Resources

● Textbook: ​Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership

Instructions

1. Review the rubric to make sure you understand the criteria

for earning your grade.

2. Navigate to ​Discussion 1.3​ and ​Discussion 2.3​ to review
threads for this ongoing conversation.

https://brightspace.indwes.edu/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=131475&type=discuss&rcode=iwu-666737

https://brightspace.indwes.edu/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=131475&type=discuss&rcode=iwu-754479

3. If your initial statement post from Workshop One was replied

to by a student with differing viewpoints, you need to

respond to that student.

4. If for some reason your initial statement was not responded

to, then go in and help defend or bolster a fellow student’s

original positions.

5. In either case (Instruction 3 or 4), you will need to ​copy​ and
paste​ the posts that you are responding to in your thread
prior to composing your rebuttal.

6. Summarize your ethical position of the Borland case.

Emphasize the strengths of your position.

7. The rebuttal response must be at least 100 words and is due

by the end of the workshop.

View the associated rubric

Access the Discussion postings page

https://brightspace.indwes.edu/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=131475&type=rubric&rCode=iwu-661506

https://brightspace.indwes.edu/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=131475&type=discuss&rcode=iwu-754486

Borland Case and the Ethical Issues:

When looking at the Borland case, it can be pointed out that it is similar to the moves that have been made by Phillipe Kahn. Kahn has, in the case study, faces hard times from grassroots. He gets to come up with better software products that are more competitive. The key aim of Kahn was to overpower some of the companies, such as Microsoft and got to build a company with two rooms, and he had no investments. The case, in this case, has related more with the various unethical levels. Many people, in this case, have considered the CEO of the company to be unethical. Khan has considered to come up with better techniques in the manner that he git to trick the bytes magazine concerning his company. The idea that khan had before was for the magazine to reach a wider audience, but it was costly for him. When he had an opportunity of launching the quarto pro program, he came up with the lotus development proportion, but the company was sued for infringement rights. When different allegations and appeals were raised, the united states was not able to bind the issues.

Levels of ethical issues:

There are different societal issues, including stakeholder issues and personal issues. The four different levels of ethical issues for the case study include:

One of the key issues is the stakeholder issues, which has been highlighted in Borland company as khan has come up with deceitful techniques so has, he was able to promote the magazine. The technique that was used was later beneficial for the company and the investors. Khan was able to disregard various copyrights, which were able to determine the future of the company.

We also have got different societal issues that relate to the world. The case shows a lack of sense and influence. Khan was able to enjoy the services from the magazine company even though the business was not generating enough income.

The case study also shows internal policy whereby khan was not able to trust some o the workers because the work was not complicated. The CEO of the company was to come up with empty calling and messaging to convince various clients. But it was more effective for the company as the CEO was able to win the lottery. We also have different personal issues that show how employees were able to relate to each other. Gary Wetzel was able to replace khan.

Khan’s actions:

The actions by khan in the case study were tricky and deceitful for the business. Lotus was accused of software development, where he stated that his position did not focus on future software development, and the innovation was supported by the allegations. The target market, in this case, was fruitful to the target market.

Ethics in khan’s decisions:

The actions performed by khan were unethical even though they resulted in positive results. He came up with an exploitative trick that was able to bring the company into a reality. He was able to trick the magazine successfully.

Personal fudge factor:

When looking at the personal fudge factor, it will get to limit people in the sense that they will not feel okay after cheating. The actions, in this case, will depend on the expected time. Actions that were portrayed by khan were not able to violate the personal fudge factor. His tricks were key and were creative enough to active his objectives for the company deposited having limited resources.

Personal actions:

The interests of khan have been more effective for the company and have helped the company to come up with the right resources. The key aim was to come up with the right assets and also invest in the magazine. It was also a way of eliminating the tricks he used on employees. The key thing is to go for something that is more moderate that will help promote the company before coming up with more capital.

My Reply:

After carefully reviewing Lalith Varma Rudraraju’s opinion on Borland’s case, it’s clear that our views are contrary to each other. Contradictory, especially while describing levels of Ethical issues in particular to Stakeholder issues & Internal policy issues. I referred to these ethical issues as how Mr. Kahn has made profits by selling the software & by hiring extra employees to scurry around the office. Whereas lalith feels broken trust within the employees, I don’t recall as damaged employees’ trust anywhere in Borland’s case. Also, Lalith refers here as Kahn’s actions did not break his/her personal fudge factor. which is quite contrary to my view Because I firmly believe that Kahn’s actions were questionable, illegal (As Referenced in

Johnson, C. E. (2017). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. SAGE Publications.

) I know as per example of drunken women driving a car as illegal but not unethical as the television team is only witnessing the scene, but these actions broke my fudge factor (Ref:

Koblin, J. (2015, August 28). Front pages on killings in Virginia spur anger. The New York Times, p. A12

)

After reading Chapter-1, it is clear that Kahn had cast the shadow of power by hiring extra employees. Shadow of mismanaged information to manipulate the salesman from Byte Magazine. Kahn had also exhibited the shadow of misplacing & broken loyalties by using the salesman and the shadow of irresponsibility by challenging Microsoft while his company was in losses. (Ref: in the Case study from book Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership).

Lalith’s discussion post also describes that Kahn has cast the shadow of power by hiring employees. The shadow of misplaced and broken loyalties by breaking employees’ trusts in internal policy issues & the shadow of privilege by tricking the consumers & gaining profits from the business.

References

Johnson, C. E. (2017). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. SAGE Publications.
Koblin, J. (2015, August 28). Front pages on killings in Virginia spur anger. The New York Times, p. A12

As the title of the story suggests, “Borland’s Brave Beginning” is very much apt. As the former COE & current chairman Philipe Kahn mentioned, he had a hard time at the company’s beginning days. They could not afford comfortable office space or funds to places an ad in Byte Magazine to reach out to a larger audience/Customers for his products. So, Kahn manipulated the Byte Magazine salesman to place an ad in Byte Magazine for affordable credit terms.

There are Four levels of Ethical issues are, The first level – Societal Issues, the Second level – Stakeholder Issues, the Third level – Ethical Internal Policy Issues, & The Fourth level – Personal Issues. The four levels of Ethical issues are present in Borland’s case identified as follows:

· Borland’s case addresses the First level – Societal issues by creating the Capital of $440 million by creating one of the biggest software companies and building an asset of $100 million headquarters.

· As mentioned in the story, the Second level – Stakeholder Issues; “the beginnings of the Borland was morally questionable, whereas others refer to it as Smart moves within the game.” So, it was Mr. Kahn’s smart thinking that got him to place an ad with Byte Magazine; in turn, he sold $150,000.00 worth of software. Which is unethical but not illegal actions (As referred to in chapter 5.1).

· The Third level – Internal Policy Issues were addressed when Mr. Kahn had hired extra employees to scurry around & made sure that the phone keeps ringing to look busy to manipulate the salesman to place an ad with Byte Magazine.

· The Fourth level – Personal Issues, as it’s referred to in the rubric story that at some point Mr. Kahn had entertained the ideas of challenging Microsoft as it is a top software manufacturing company, while the Borland company had hard times.

After analyzing all the scenarios, I noticed that the players in this Borland’s case are benefitted Financially and Economically in the First, Second & Third levels. Whereas they Ethically failed in the Third & Fourth levels, as explained in the above steps.

I think that Mr. Kahn’s actions as a bit of both Shrewd & Deception, as his quick thinking got him software sales of $150,000.00; also, I cannot ignore the fact That he had to deceive the salesman from Byte Magazine to place an ad which got him the software sales.

I can’t entirely agree that Kahn’s actions were Ethical, even though everyone won in the end. Because his actions were unethical but only exception is that his activities were not illegal (As referenced in Chapter-5 from Human Relations OER, as an Example: A Television Crew filming Drunken women drive her car, to spread awareness on alcoholism). But he did accept all this in an interview with Inc. Magazine in 1989, which probably accounts for his moral ethics.

Personal Fudge Factor is nothing but a limit to which human beings can cheat comfortably without feeling guilty about their actions. This fudge factor can be Expanded or compressed depending on the scenarios and what is at stake to lose. According to the research in Ted Talk: Our Buggy Moral Code, it is proven that people tend to cheat less when they are reminded of their Moral code. In Borland’s case, Mr. Kaha’s did violate a little bit of my fudge factor by deceiving the salesman from Byte Magazine. Later, he did accept these things during an interview that shows he was honest about it. In recent times I think many corporate companies are deceiving in one way or another to attract customers; for Ex: Skincare & Haircare product ads influence the buyers by exaggerating the product benefits. I think these issues at least to be addressed in internal policies.

If I was Kahn, some ways to achieve the same outcomes as Borland but in more ethical practices would be: 1) Raising initial Capital for the company to sustain by reaching out to local Banks/Financial Centers for a loan. 2) By bringing more investors/Stakeholders on board by explaining future financial benefits for each investor/stakeholder and to the country by generating Revenue. 3) By reaching out to the local government for help, as this company provides jobs to many local citizens & in returns generate Revenue for the country. By following any one of the ways described above and not fall prey to personal issues, the Borland will result in the same/better financial status. Because having enough Capital to run the company would result in Successful Ethical levels in the First, second, & Third level. Because at this point, Mr. Kahn does not have to deceive any salesman & he could afford to pay for an ad in Byte Magazine. As per for success of the fourth level of an ethical issue by all the incidents above, Mr. Kahn would have modeled a higher moral code due to which the company would still be in a better place instead of falling into hard times (As referenced in Sources of Ethics from models in Chapter-5 Human Relations OER).

References

Be ethical at work. (n.d.). Site not found · GitHub Pages.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_human-relations/s09-be-ethical-at-work.html

Johnson, C. E. (2017). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. SAGE Publications.

Ariely, D. (2009, February). Our buggy moral code. TED: Ideas worth spreading.

https://brightspace.indwes.edu/d2l/le/content/131475/viewContent/2209913/View

Thank you

Sowmya Nagraj