Reference no: EM132104222

Mike and Iris were reviewing the asset valuation worksheets that had been collected from all the company managers.

“Iris,” Mike said after a few minutes, “the problem, as I see it, is that no two managers gave us answers that can be compared to each other’s. Some gave only one value, and some didn’t actually use a rank order for the last part. In fact, we don’t know what criteria were used to assess the ranks or even where they got the cost or replacement values.”

“I agree,” Iris said, nodding. “These values and ranks are really inconsistent. This makes it a real challenge to make a useful comprehensive list of information assets. We’re going to have to visit all the managers and figure out where they got their values and how the assets were ranked.”

Ethical Decision Making

Suppose Mike and Iris make a decision to simply take the higher of each of the values without regard to how the values were determined by the person who made the initial assessment. Then, they determine their own rankings among all of the compiled assets. When the list is later included in the planning process, they represent it as being authoritative since it came from “all of the managers”

Is this method, even if it is faster and easier, an ethical way to do business? Why or Why not?