The case study on Salt Lake City, the Olympics, and Bribery manifested a complex scenario, which demands a critical valuation. The case involved the perceived default by professional heads of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee (SLCOC) and members from the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who have the full understanding of the ethical and legal stipulations of their work. The analysis of the case requires exclusive consideration of all facets ranging from the activities, circumstances that led to the occurrences, the individuals involved and the required rules as well as the regulations governing the corporates. Therefore, the analysis would employ the Laura Nash twelve question model, the Front page of the Newspaper test, as well as the Blanchard and Peale test. The case comprised of a longer time frame starting from the year 1966 to the 2003 and incorporating the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee (SLCOC) together with their specific families in various nations.
The case involved the two main stakeholders IOC and the SLCOC, and it is within them that the manifested ethical dilemmas resulted. Mr. Welch and Mr. Johnson were protuberant members of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee who embraced the notion of winning irrespective of the manner. They assimilated this culture after losing a series of Olympic bids for their city. The visit by Prince Albert confirmed that using excessive money together with gifts is never the best way of winning over the International Olympic Committee. Therefore, “doing what everyone else was doing” was the only way to obtain the bid according to Mr. Johnson. In this regard, the analysis would then consider Laura’s Nash question on the main intention of making such options. Johnson would have possibly concluded that providing monetary gifts was employing warm language to eliminate the bribery dilemma.
The case lacked some glimpse of information when brought to the IOC and its members. I would have preferred knowing their complete code of ethics and in case of or not it was imposed, applied and clear to its members with those of the SLCOC. Supposing both sides predetermined the code of ethics, and applying the National Enquirer Test would assist in explaining whether the option of accepting to sell one’s vote or allowing monetary incentives that the IOC forbidden from being more than 150 dollars, could be understood by a stranger as bribery. The dilemma in this case than can be a momentous is “The IOC’s Un-Olympic Way of Getting Ahead.” This possible title could have assisted in prompting the IOC to reexamine its choice to maintain a trust by those who obey and adore what the Olympics truly mean.
Laura Nash Test
The Laura Nash Test model employs twelve questions in investigating ethical dilemmas. The first question tends to determine if the problem has been defined accurately. The SLCOC ought to have defined the problem perfectly. They demanded the Salt Lake City to acquire the opportunity. In case they would have asked this question, they would have identified the ethical dilemmas deterring them from securing their bid and solved the issue before opting for bribery to the IOC.
The second question inquires what the SLCOC would have done in the determination of the problem in case they were the opposite party. This question attempts to prompt the SLCOC members to assess themselves and identify the right position of the law. The SLCOC should implement what they can do to other parties amongst themselves and retain their integrity. Without such definitions, the SLCOC lost its integrity in the scandal since the public realized that they never believed in their own rules.
The manner in which the situation occurred is the third question in this model. The situation resulted because the SLCOC had been endeavoring to hold the Olympics in its city since 1966. The SLCOC believed that they never had adequate resources allocated for the activity. When some members of SLCOC realized that the IOC was receiving gifts in 1989, they opted to do that as other countries were already doing that. The SLCOC utilized massive resources in the 1991 bid for the 2002 Olympics where they rationalized on using whatever means to garner more votes and win their bid.
The fourth question tends to identify the person an individual give the loyalties and the nature of loyalties one offers. The SLCOC gave its tribute to the IOC in terms of gifts and money. The SLCOC member who opted to write an anonymous letter offered tribute to the SLCOC and admitted the elaborations by Mr. Johnson. The SLCOC decided that money was capable of solving every problem. The IOC and SLCOC decided that the money is important and engaged in unethical behavior propelled by self-interests.
The main intention for reaching this decision is the fifth question in this model. The SLCOC had been in the constant attempts to hold the winter Olympics since 1966. They believed that their act of offering gifts to IOC was the main reason. They then involved in bribery to achieve their goal. However, it should be understood that their aim was to hold the Winter Olympics and the corruption were only a means they used to attain their goal.
The comparison of the intention with the likely result is probed in the next section of the mode. The intention resulted in the SLCOC’s acquisition of the chance to host the games. Conversely, there were negative results that determined the SLCOC and IOC to be corrupt and unethical. It also risked the fates of the corporates in the global perspective. The SLCOC and IOC lost their reputation and almost lost their sponsors.
This decision could hurt the Salt Lake City by being banned for hosting the games. The city also had tarnished reputation as it was known that it could not secure the bid genuinely. The SLCOC had to face the legal action. The IOC would also be affected since they would also be investigated and lose some of their priorities. The players would have also been affected together with their countries.
The question on capability of engaging the hurt parties is the next in the chronology of the mode. The question determines to know if you can engage the parties before making a decision. It helps in determining if the decision to be made is unethical the SLCOC never engaged such questions because they would have avoided the effects on the hurt parties such as IOC and the Salt Lake City.
The confidence on validity of the decision over a long time is questioned. The SLCOC ought to have determined the validity of their decision in the long run. The SLCOC only thought of the immediate benefits rather than the consequences that were associated later such as investigation and prosecution. If the SLCOC would have considered the validity the effects of their decision would not have been detrimental to them, and other parties involved.
The tenth part of the model questioned on whether the SLCOC and the IOC members responsible for making the decisions would have been free in sharing the decisions with their bosses, family and the society members. If the SLCOC and IOC would have asked themselves such questions they would have realized that they would not have faced their bosses, families or the public with such decisions and would stop the acts. They would not have done so without involving the bosses, family members and public.
In the eleventh question, the model inquires the symbolic model of the decision if understood r misunderstood. If the decision had been understood, the public would have faith in the SLCOC committee members as being determined and achieving their goal. It would also believe that the SLCOC had members who did their best to ensure that they have their bid to secure the chance. If the situation had been misunderstood, there would be a belief that the SLCOC and IOC were made of corrupt people and criminals who only considered enriching themselves and never recognized the law.
The last question in this model tends to determine the circumstances under which the SLCOC would compromise its stand with regards to the law and their ethical stipulations. The exception of this decision would have been offering the money as well as the presents to the community or charity corporates rather than the IOC for personal gains, corruption.
Primum Nocere Test
The primum non nocere is an ethical assessment mode used to analyze the ethical dilemmas contemporaneous in this situation. Primum non nocere implies “above all, do no harm.” In case the SLCOC had applied this test before they had decided to offer gifts, they would not have been in the state, they got into. According to their actions, the Salt Lake City Bribery Scandal affected the Olympics itself and assisted in ruining the name of the whole IOC, albeit all its members were not compliant to the gifts. The occurrence also deformed the name of the Olympics, with organizations endeavoring to withdraw their finances, even from the whole Summer Olympics in Sydney, which was not associated with the scandal
Wall Street Journal
Wall Street Journal would have been essential in deciding whether their actions were compliant to the accepted code or not was the Wall Street Journal test. Here, there are three questions they ought to have asked themselves such as Am I in compliance with the law?, What contribution does this choice of action makes to the company, the shareholders, the community, and others?
Finally, what are the short and long-term consequences of these decisions? Considering the first question of determining the legality of the act, they would have noticed that the actions explained in this case of offering $1.2 million exceeded the accepted $150, and this was unethical besides being illegal. The actions of destroying the documents were equally illegal and not ethical. Therefore, indulging in many of such behavior would have been signals to illegal acts.
In the second question of question of the effects of the act on every stakeholder together with the entire community, the SLCOS ought to have learnt that their actions were contrary to the ethical and legal provisions. The action of taking bribes from the bidders was not good and attaining wealth through illegal means, as well. The destruction of documents also implied that they were hiding something from the public and the law. The impact their decisions had on the shareholders were the accrued losses both directly and indirectly. Remember, compromise of integrity of the company in any situation would result into repulsion of the intending investors and shareholders. The community determined that the company in which they have been confident with was no longer as expected. Therefore, the community lost the bid offered to the meriting bidder. Therefore, no justice to the community. The employees of the SLCOC also risked from being arrested, charged and jailed, or a massive fine imposed on the company. The city was also at risk of being banned eternally from hosting the Olympic Games.
Lastly, the SLCOC needed to determine the short and the long term effects of their actions as postulated in this model. The company would have considered halting the deal and contemplating the repercussions of the intended acts. They would have understood the negative consequences of their acts of impunity. In the short term effects, they risked being banned from hosting the 2002 Olympic Games after the vetting of their finances. In the long term consequences, the city’s reputation would have been observed as being unethical and corrupt. Again, even with the success in securing the chance, the Salt City would not have acquired the investors to support the occasion. In this regard, the city was lucky in securing the chance of hosting the games and acquiring the funds adequately.
Blanchard and Peale
Blanchard and Peale test could have offered an explicit understanding to the SLCOC before engaging in the bribery acts. The SLCOC members would have determined three questions: “Is it legal? Is it balanced? How does it make me feel?” the first inquisition of whether the acceptance of bribes and destruction of evidentiary documents is legal. Through this question, they would have determined that they were wrong. When asking if this act was legal, they should have realized right than that they were in wrong. Even through the SLCOC faced the criminal charges, the case contained ethical issues that compromised the integrity. The main ethical issue was that was expressed in the entire case for instance was the act of accepting offers beyond the stated $150 by far to an amount of 1.2 million by the IOC together with their families. The SLCOC also expressed impunity in their acts by instructing the law firm to destroy their documents. The SLCOC first became unethical and totally illegal in their acts before they were investigated and brought to book.
The SLCOC ought to have determined whether the situation was balanced. In this case, they would have determined the interests of the corporate, community as well as the shareholders. The committee members would have considered to review their decisions. If they had followed this procedure, they would have determined that the decision would only favor their immediate interests and landed them into serious consequences in the future. The committee members would have also determined that not all the members of SLCOC desired bribes but because the reputable members opted for bribes, the entire group engaged in taking the bribes. In the Salt Lake City community perspective, they would have realized that it would not earn them respect as the entire globe would have noticed that the city could only secure the opportunity of hosting the Olympic Games through bribery to the IOC. Through prior considerations, the SLCOC member’s decisions would have been influenced positively.
The questions that the SLCOC members ought to have asked themselves is how the decision made them feel. In case of any member of the SLCOC in quested from the conscience on the feeling imparted by the decision, one would have the opportunity of analyzing the effect and realize the quilt it encompassed in offering bribes to the IOC. The members ought to have evaluated themselves and determine the comfort in their decisions. After a careful self-examination, they would have realized the effects of the decisions. Nonetheless, since they never balanced their thoughts, they faced the situation with a unidirectional mind without considering the adverse effects it had on them and the entire city. With the use of Blanchard and Peale test by the SLCOC, they would have identified the emotional and the characteristic imbalances and corrected. Though they never applied this model and ended up in a scandal.
Front of the Newspaper Test
In this case, the SLCOC would have inquired how their name would have appeared in the front page of their local newspaper if the scandal surfaced. Effective determination of the effects of this test would have warned the committee not to engage in the unethical behavior. Therefore, they would not have faced the scandal and the eventual consequences of investigations and tarnish of the reputation.
The main question responsible for altering the situation to a desirable instance is the method that can apply to change a company with a biased system. Offering of bribes to the IOC had been a common practice amongst the associated committees and bodies, and in case a group could not comply than group would encounter a downfall. Individuals had coined notions with regards to the bribes to the extent that superseding the limits of offering stipulated by the regulations was not an issue. Committees lobbied for the allocation of the opportunities to be allocated opportunities to hold Olympic Games regardless of the consequences of their deals. Individuals had been considering a short term benefits rather than the long term effects. Presuming that such a company announces its policy demands explicitly and raises the alarm of the corrupt situation to its competitors publicly. Even though such an act would jeopardize the committee’s activities in the short run, it would have been building a constructive platform for the bodies in the country that are responsible for fighting corruption enhancing effective work. The SLCOC ought to have presented itself as the perfect candidate for the offer but failed to attain its intention.
Occasionally, a company has to begin from a particular point and proceed from its starting point. The company has to concede the effects of their past misfortunes and opt to make changes for a better future. The SLCOC can opt for such a decision. SLCOC can attain this objective by advocating for transparent organizational activities, which are attainable through enlightening their management together with the employees. The fundamental principle for averting future problems of the same nature is by starting to organize them whilst still in their initial stages and never permitting the ethical dilemmas to transcend to the public. This practice would associate higher costs in the beginning but would avert the prospective financial troubles which are attributed to the unethical conducts. Every stakeholder would be affected regardless of the position in the company with such changes proposed. These are only concerned with operating an ethical company that embraces the accepted values. The public will recognize the business honesty, and this would build the reputation further. Therefore, the company should have the long term as its main focus in the future rather than the current emphasis on the short term.