Prescriptive Solutions General Motors and Ford have both had their issues with cars being sold with glaring and known safety problems. Ford's issues with the Pinto are legendary (not to mention notorious) while General Motors (GM) is having their own issues right now with the ignitions and steering systems on their vehicles. While the amount of deaths with the Pinto were starkly higher, the GM travails and missteps of today are hauntingly similar and there seems to be too much focus on putting a public relations spin on things and not enough on making sure that the cars built are both competitive and the marketplace but also safe. Fortunately, GM is not incurring sales hits as a result of the kerfuffle but they are absolutely taking hits to be bottom line in the form of recall and litigation costs for people that have been hurt, injured or affected financially by the defective vehicles. While making an attractive car is important, putting safety on the backburner is at best unethical and at worst criminal and it should never be occurring in the modern ethical, business and public safety arena.

Analysis

As noted in the introduction, there are some stark similarities between what happened with Ford and the Pinto back in the 1970's and 1980's and what is happening right now. In both cases, the carmakers are belching out cars that are clearly defective and that could pose a hazard to car owners and drivers. In both cases, the company made an active decision to ignore the problems either from the onset or at least when they were discovered. Lastly, both cases hurt the company greatly in terms of dollars and sense. However, there are also two major differences between the two instances. First, Ford's took a major public relations hit and this is going to happen when passengers in their defective cars cook like Thanksgiving turkeys when the car explodes. Conversely, the defects in the GM cars, while known about a long time ago, are not usually killing people except in very isolated instances. This is perhaps a case of moral luck and one could suggest that both transgressions (both by Ford and GM) were just as bad. However, that is not the way it has been reacted to and dealt with, at least from a public perception. The legal ramifications are massive for both test cases but Ford suffered a lot more. While this may make sense given the senseless deaths involved, what GM has been doing as of late is roughly the same thing even if they have less blood on their hands. Public relations spin and wanton neglect/bad ethics are ruling the day. What's even worse is that the United States government (the same government that is now seeking to charge GM with crimes or issue fines) had a majority stake in GM for much of the time that the GM transgressions were going on. The author of this report could drill deeper on that topic but that could (and should) be its own report (Valdes-Dapena, 2014; Isidore, 2014; Trevino & Nelson, 2011).

Regarding the approaches that Ford and GM could have or should have made in relation to these events, decisions and what led up to both, there are several that the class text points out but the one that shall be the primary focus would be the prescriptive approach. There are multiple types of prescriptive solutions. These include consequentialist theories and deontological theories. The more common consequentialist approach that people often point to is the utilitarian approach. Of course, it is not entirely easy to ascribe a utilitarian approach to a firm that is trying to compete with others and make money, but the general idea of getting the mots benefit out of a situation is something General Motors, Ford and other automakers do all of the time. The problem is when dimensions and factors such as safety are subjugated in favor of things like profits and public relation eyesores (Trevino & Nelson, 2011). When General Motors knows about ignition problems for a decade (or more) and focuses more on not using the wrong buzzwords in industry/corporate documents, that is truly pathetic and borderline-criminal. It is certainly unethical (Valdes-Dapena, 2014). Instead, General Motors should take on an adapted approach that is both profit-minded but also ethical in nature. The end goal of any business decision with General Motors should be to make the most profitable cars. That is, they should strive to make cars that people want...

However, there are several factors and dimensions that should never be compromised. To put it concisely, any decision that leads to the deceit of or injury to a customer and it that can be foreseen and/or prevented, then the proper and only reaction to that is to do the right thing even if that means spending or losing money. Any decision that is reminiscent of Edward Norton's character in the movie Fight Club should be the antithesis of what General Motors, Ford or any other automaker decides to do. In other words, if public safety is at risk due to a defect in a car, a recall should be issued with no question. If a problem is just an annoyance like a bad radio or something, then the urgency is going to be less because there is no potential loss of life. However, anything relating to electrical malfunction, brake issues, ignition problems and so forth should be a no-brainer and safety should always be the main (if not the only) factor involved and not the cost of doing a recall (Trevino & Nelson, 2011).
Other prescriptive viewpoints are much more applicable in unchanged fashion to the GM and Ford situations. Many (but not all) businesses are quick to point out their convictions, passions and integrity as it relates to how they do their job, their focus on the customer's satisfaction and the focus on the customer's safety. This is where deontological viewpoints become apparent as this is precisely what deontology is. Indeed, deontology is a focus on duties, obligations and principles. When it comes to making something as potentially dangerous as a car, these principles, obligations and duties should be carved in granite from both a legal perspective as well as internal business perspective. It should not take the threat of a lawsuit or criminal indictment to get firms to have core principles that they actually both speak and adhere to. They should already be present and they should be strictly followed. Anyone or any department that does not follow these guidelines and principles should be reformed or discarded as they have no place in the collective. Of course, the base principles and facets of moral imperatives need to be based on reality and ethics, but one gets the idea (Trevino & Nelson, 2011).

As for what a middle manager at GM could or should have done during the current recall crisis, it is clear that they have to understand the difference between following orders and being an accomplice. If the worst consequences of these affected items were just inconvenience and annoyance, it would still not be a good thing but there are literally lives on the line here. It is not nearly as dire and dangerous as the Pinto debacle but it's the same kind of bad behavior. This is precisely a situation where a whistle-blower might be the only way to get things going. Of course, a person should start though the usual channels and try to effect change that way. However, if the GM-related stories mentioned before are any indication, there was a systematic and coordinated effort to obfuscate and "BS" people using code words, avoiding other words and so forth. Any middle manager who wishes to maintain their reputation and so forth would need to find a new job and/or blow the whistle to regulatory bodies and so forth. Perhaps an anonymous warning to the management could work. This warning could state that GM managers/employees in on the ruse either clean up their act or they get reported with full disclosure and gritty details. However, the fix has clearly been in and such a warning would probably only result in retaliation and threats. As such, a "scorched earth" approach where all incriminating and relevant informant is forwarded to the government (or even the media) might be called for. Reporting it to the government might not get the job done considering the ownership issue discussed earlier whereby the United States government is both the owner and the regulator. True, that was due to the bailout that probably saved GM's existence but government running businesses of that scale is not done in most countries for a reason with the exception of things like utilities and other public use goods. Cars are not nearly as "necessary" (although they are very close) as public utilities, the possibility of conflict of interest is quite obvious. Of course, the government has since divested itself of GM stock but the question and concern…