Question

Read Case 8.3 – Speaking Out about Malt and answer the 6 questions ABSTRACT:- WHEN MARY DAVIS, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT for plant management at Whitewater Brewing Company, wrote an article for a large metropolitan newspaper in her state, she hadn’t realized where it would lead. At first she was thrilled to see her words published. Then she was just worried about keeping her job. It all started when her husband, Bob, who was working on his MBA, talked her into taking an evening class with him. She did and, to her surprise, really got into the course, spending most of her weekends that semester working on her term project—a study of wine and beer marketing. Among other things her essay discussed those respectable wine companies like E. & J. Gallo (the nation’s largest) that market cheap, fortified wines such as Thunderbird and Night Train Express. With an alcohol content 50 percent greater and a price far less than regular wine, these screw-top wines are seldom advertised and rarely seen outside poor neighborhoods, but they represent a multimillion dollar industry. Skid-row winos are their major consumers, a fact that evidently embarrasses Gallo, because it doesn’t even put its company name on the label.86 Mary’s essay went on to raise some moral questions about the marketing of malt liquor, a beer brewed with sugar for an extra punch of alcohol. It has been around for about forty years; what is relatively new is the larger size of the container. A few years ago, the industry introduced malt liquor in 40-ounce bottles that sell for about three dollars. Packing an alcohol content roughly equivalent to six 12-ounce beers or five cocktails, 40s quickly became the favorite high of many inner-city teenagers. Ads for competing brands stress potency—“It’s got more” or “The Real Power”—and often use gang slang. Get “your girl in the mood quicker and get your jimmy thicker,” raps Ice Cube in a commercial for St. Ides malt liquor. Like baggy pants and baseball caps turned backward, 40s soon moved from the inner city to the suburbs. Teenage drinkers like the quick drunk, and this worries drug counselors. They call 40s “liquid crack” and “date rape brew.”87 Mary’s instructor liked her article and encouraged her to rewrite it for the newspaper. The problem was that Whitewater also brews a malt liquor, called Rafter, which it had recently started offering in a 40-ounce bottle. True, Mary’s article mentioned Whitewater’s brand only in passing, but top management was distressed by her criticisms of the whole industry, which, they thought, damaged its image and increased the likelihood of further state and federal regulation. The board of directors thought Mary had acted irresponsibly, and Ralph Jenkins, the CEO, had written her a memo on the board’s behalf instructing her not to comment publicly about malt liquor without first clearing her remarks with him. Mary was hurt and angry. “I admit that the way the newspaper edited my essay and played up the malt liquor aspect made it more sensationalistic,” Mary explained to her colleague Susan Watts, “but everything I said was true.” “I’m sure it was factual,” replied Susan, “but the company thought the slant was negative. I mean, lots of ordinary people drink Rafter.” “I know that. Bob even drinks it sometimes. I don’t know why they are so upset about my article. I barely mentioned Rafter. Anyway, it’s not like Rafter is a big moneymaker. Most of our other beers outsell it.” “Well,” continued Susan, “the company is really touchy about the whole issue. They think the product is under political attack these days and that you were disloyal.” THE ORGANIZATION AND THE PEOPLE IN IT “That’s not true,” Mary replied. “I’m no troublemaker, and I have always worked hard for Whitewater. But I do think they and the other companies are wrong to market malt liquor the way they do. It only makes a bad situation worse.” The next day Mary met with Ralph Jenkins and told him that she felt Whitewater was “invading,” as she put it, her rights as a citizen. In fact, she had been invited to speak about wine and beer marketing at a local high school as part of its antidrug campaign. She intended to keep her speaking engagement and would not subject her remarks to company censorship. Jenkins listened but didn’t say much, simply repeating what he had already written in his memo. But two days later Mary received what was, in effect, an ultimatum. She must either conform with his original order or submit her resignation. QUESTIONS:- 1. Do you think Mary Davis acted irresponsibly or disloyally? Does Whitewater have a legitimate concern about her speaking out on this issue? Does the company have a right to abridge her freedom of expression? 2. Is your answer to question 1 affected by whether you agree or disagree with the views Mary Davis expressed? 3. Should there be any limits on an employee’s freedom of expression? If not, why not? If so, under what circumstances is a company justified in restricting an employee’s right to speak out? 4. The case presentation doesn’t specify whether the newspaper article identified Mary Davis as an employee of Whitewater. Is that a relevant issue? Does it matter what position in the company Mary Davis holds? 5. What do you think Mary Davis ought to do? What moral considerations should she weigh? Does she have conflicting obligations? If so, what are they? 6. Is the company right to be worried about what Mary Davis writes or says, or is the board of directors exaggerating the potential harm to Whitewater of her discussing these issues?

Answer 1

1. No Mary Davis did not acted irresponsibly or disloyally. To be honest that was the most responsible thing to do from anybodies perspective, all the companies should act responsibly on customer related issues. As a matter of fact they should consider this as an opportunity and look at how they can care about the customers by providing healthy drink and market themselves with a positive image. Coming to the question of loyalty, she did not disclose any internal information of the company she was working for and also the report was given on the general perspective basis the observation through her study for her MBA project.

The term irresponsible and disloyal is out of question in this case.

2. My answer was basis the case facts provided. I believe, Mary is just a communicator of facts here.

3. Definitely there should be restrictions on employees freedom of speech. All the companies work on their own values, and if these values are getting affected then there definitely should be some restrictions in place. But, those restrictions cannot be expressed in terms of social issues.

In the above case, if the company does not want to make comments on its competitor, they can ask Mary not to disclose herself as a worker of their company and the reports/columns of Mary in news papers would have been her own views. But restriction on a social issue is not a good thing.

The restrictions are important because we live in a very diverse community and in a data rich world, where the business needs some confidentiality to be maintained. Hence definitely business related restrictions are good to have.

4. As answered above, that is definitely a relevant issue and it is a good thing. Because when someone writes in a newspaper and discloses the company he/she is working for, immediately it will seen as a companies view on the subject. Which the board of the company might or might not agree. In such cases board should be consulted before providing his/her view, at least in the issues that are sensitive or might impact the business.

5. Mary Davis can fight against the ultimatum, as per outsider view there is no wrong doing from her end.

6. Yes it definitely will have a impact on the company as they are in the same business. But what they should realize is that, if Mary hasn't raised the issue, someone will. May be by then the company might be exposed to more loss, because of their investment into expansion of their product.

Right now they haven't invested much is my assumption as it is one of the small revenue makers. This product is actually leading to a major risk in the business, which they can evaluate before moving further.