Case study research methodology and applications

¶ … unresolved issues that need to be addressed within the VideoTek company. It appears that the first problems arose with the arrival of outside "big company types" to take control of the company's growth and management. In fact, this element, rather than the growth of the company, appears to have escalated out of control. The first symptoms of the problem lies in the rumors that began spreading throughout the company, that all was not well in management's commitment to the company's originally ethical paradigm. Another symptom is the lack of growth after Jeremy Campbell's appointment as manager. Under his management, new products did not seem to have the attracting power that the company's products did before.

These are all symptomatic of deeper-rooted problems, such as that management is not truly committed to the high ethics or the high quality that had been VideoTek's paradigm before. Because management had begun to show a lack of such commitment, employees have also started lagging behind in their commitment to quality and faith in their work. These in the end reflect negatively upon the products and growth of the company. All these elements lead to the problem of a lack of trust from employees towards the company's management and hence a further lack of enthusiasm for their work. A further basic problem is the fact that Jeremy seemed to have been involved in unethical financial deals with other members of management, as well as former employees of the company in order to favor themselves rather than the company. Hence the lack of financial growth or bonuses for the employees.

Despite the strongly worded email that Jeremy sent, the issue of trust and unethical behavior remains unresolved. The case does not state any response to the accusations made in the anonymous letter. It appears that management's position is to deny any accusations and/or rumors around the company. Instead, the position is that management has never acted in any but the most ethical manner. Clearly however, if the second e-mail is to be believed, this is not the case. The root problem here, as mentioned, is trust. Messages such as the second e-mail are designed to undermine what trust might have remained from employees towards management. Such trust would however have been stronger if management had been ethical in the first place and honest in the second. There would have been no rumors if there were not a seed of truth in them. Furthermore, the facts and figures relating to the company's performance and the actions of management tend to speak for themselves. This remains unresolved, because management refuses to face up to its mistakes.

The main player in the dilemma is Jeremy Campbell. He appears untouchable, continuing his practices and encouraging those working directly with him to act in a similar manner. Other players include the members of the "ethics committee," interestingly enough appearing to be elected by management itself, with no involvement from employees. This in itself suggests that management prefers people of its own choosing to cover up unethical behavior by management. At the same time, employees are encouraged to look for unethical behavior among fellow employees. This would act as a smoke screen for the higher-level lack of ethics.