Lussier, Management Fundamentals, 7e
© 2017, SAGE Publications
23. “Tommy, would you like your job to be less repetitive? If so, I can add a couple new tasks to your
job responsibility.”
C. Job enlargement. Adding new tasks to a job is enlarging it.
24. “Jamal, I’d like you to learn how to run the switchboard so that you can fill in for Bridget while she
is on vacation.”
25. “I’ve called this meeting because I’d like you guys to work together to come up with ways to
improve how the department jobs get done.”
JOIN THE DISCUSSION ANSWERS
Join the Discussion 7–1: Breaking the Rules
Suppose you are a sales rep for a major pharmaceutical company. You get paid by commission, so the
more drugs you sell to doctors, the more money you make. You know that sales reps in your company
have been visiting doctors and telling them that if they prescribe your company’s medication, they will
receive 5% of the sales revenues. This arrangement can bring in thousands of dollars each year for both
the sales reps and the doctors. You know the names of a few sales reps who are allegedly giving these
kickbacks, but you are not sure how many sales reps are involved. You also don’t know if sales managers
know about the kickbacks or are receiving payments from the reps.
1. Is it unethical to be flexible and break the law against kickbacks?
2. Why are kickbacks illegal? Who benefits from kickbacks, who gets hurt by them, and how?
3. What would you do in this situation? (Would you start giving kickbacks yourself? Blow the whistle
on sales reps to their managers? Blow the whistle to an outside source like the government or the
media? Do nothing?)
Answers vary
Join the Discussion 7–2: Delegating Destroying Documents
Arthur Andersen, a consulting company, was taken to court for destroying evidence that could have
been used in court to support allegations of illegal activities. Arthur Andersen destroyed evidence
related to the auditing of Enron to protect both companies from being found guilty of engaging in illegal
business practices. Arthur Andersen claimed that it was not trying to destroy incriminating evidence, but
was simply destroying records, which is done periodically. Destroying documents is, in fact, routine. The
key question is this: “What is being destroyed, and why is it being destroyed?”