You are the manager of a spare parts company A and you have to negotiate a deal with the manager of a large manufacturing company B. The deal is highly competitive and sealing the deal is critical for your company. The deal is being worked out over a dinner. After dinner the manager of manufacturing company B offered to drop you to the hotel in his car. On the way to hotel he happens to hit motorcycle injuring the motorcyclist badly. You know the manager was driving fast and thus lost control. The law enforcement officer comes to investigate the issue and you are the sole eyewitness to it. Knowing the strict laws pertaining to road accidents you are aware that your honest account of the incident would lead to the prosecution of the manager and as a consequence the deal is likely to be jeopardised, which is of immense importance to your company. What are the dilemmas you face? What will be your response to the situation? (250 Words)

The situation involves a car accident caused by the manager of Company B, with whom I am negotiating a critical business deal. As the sole eyewitness, I’m aware that my testimony could lead to his prosecution and potentially jeopardize the deal crucial for my company, Company A.

Ethical Dilemma:

Legal Responsibility: Being the sole eyewitness, I have a moral and legal obligation to provide an honest account.
Company Interest: The deal is of immense importance to my company’s future, and my testimony could jeopardize it.

Personal Dilemma:

Integrity: Upholding my personal values by telling the truth may have significant professional consequences.
Professional Obligation: My primary role as a manager is to secure the best interests of my company.

Stakeholder Involvement:

Injured Motorcyclist: This person’s well-being and access to justice hinge on my testimony.
Company B Manager: His professional and personal life would be impacted by my account.
Company A: My employer’s financial future is at stake here.

Possible Responses:

Honest Testimony:

Merit: Upholds legal and moral responsibility, may positively impact motorcyclist’s legal claim.
Demerit: Almost certain to negatively impact the deal with Company B.

Partial Disclosure:

Merit: May avoid completely scuttling the deal.
Demerit: Could be construed as dishonest, potentially illegal.

No Disclosure:

Merit: Protects the business deal and Company A’s interests.
Demerit: Violates legal and ethical standards, compromises integrity.

Legal Consultation:

Merit: Provides a knowledgeable perspective on how to navigate the situation.
Demerit: May not offer a solution that satisfies all ethical and legal obligations.

In summary, the dilemma presents conflicting interests between ethical responsibility, personal integrity, and professional obligations. Considering the multiple stakeholders involved, consulting legal advice would be a prudent first step, followed by an honest testimony.