Case Study: Ethical Dilemma #4

 

This ethical dilemma is based on a true story that seems quite typical:

 

The government of Latin American country decided to develop the new road system in order to improve logistics and economics. Government ran a bid. Company X won this bid and began road works.

In a few months, law enforcement revealed that company X managed to win the bid by bribing some government officials. Road works were stopped immediately. Company X was sued. It should return back all money received from government and pay an additional fine for bribery. Corruption was punished.

The project was stopped at the stage of ground works. In two months, the rain season started, and everything was washed away. If project was not stopped, roads were paved before the rains begin, and country would enjoy new road system. Now, country got nothing.

Could law enforcement allow the company X to finish the project? No, because law requires to punish any crime immediately.

What is better, respect for the law resulting in no roads or delayed justice leaving country with new road system?

We start analysis of this “Mission: Impossible” story from Contradiction:

The fact that law enforcement revealed the corruption in bidding hinders development of new road system. In order to corrects this hindrance, they should’ve allowed the company to finish the project. However, law requires to punish both sides of corruption immediately, and this fact hinders finishing the project.

Then, we can formulate the Mission:

Accomplish improvement of logistics and economics while complying with requirements of finishing the project is successfully and running this project in planned manner.

Now, let’s formulate the Intent and other Links:

Accomplish improvement of logistics and economics by developing the new road system.

The fact that law enforcement revealed the corruption in bidding hinders compliance with requirement of finishing the project successfully.

Development of new road system should enforce compliance with requirement of finishing the project successfully.

Allowing the company to finish the project should correct noncompliance with requirement of finishing the project successfully.

Allowing the company to finish the project should enforce compliance with requirement of running the project in planned manner.

The fact that law requires to punish both sides of corruption immediately hinders compliance with requirement of running the project in planned manner.

Now, we can develop the following model of “Mission: Impossible” situation:

 

Fig. 8.What is better, delay justice and get new roads or respect the law and get no roads?

Chapter II: Brief Summary

  1. The purpose of analytical work with “Mission: Impossible” situation is to reveal the relevant Components and Links that form its unique story.

  2. “Mission: Impossible” situation includes two main Components: Mission and Contradiction. Also, this situation includes the network-like Links between these Components.

  3. Mission that should be accomplished could be described as “achievement of Goal that complies with Requirements.” In the analytical Model of “Mission: Impossible” situation, we usually consider two Requirements linked to the Contradiction.

    • IMF team’s Mission is to prevent Golitsyn from stealing a NOC list in a way that complies with secrecy of IMF team activities and no losses in IMF team

  4. Contradiction that renders accomplishment of Mission impossible and thus should be resolved could be described as follows: “Circumstance Beyond Control hinders Activity used to achieve the Goal. Corrective Action corrects this hindrance, but in its turn is hindered by Obstacle.”

    • Contradiction that renders IMF team’s Mission impossible to accomplish is as follows: Mole inside the IMF hinders IMF team carrying out the operation. If Ethan Hunt could reveal the mole, then he might correct the situation. However, Kittridge suspects that Ethan is the mole, and thus prevents him to clean up the mess.

  5. There are several Links connecting the Contradiction with Mission:

    • Intent links Activity with Achievement of Goal:

      • IMF team carries out the operation accomplishes preventing Golitsyn from stealing a NOC list

    • First hindrance links Circumstance Beyond Control with Requirement-1:

      • Mole inside the IMF hinders “no losses” requirement

    • First compliance links Activity with Requirement-1:

      • Operation was planned and carried out in a way that enforces compliance with “no losses” requirement

    • Correction links Corrective Action with hindered Requirement-1:

      • If Ethan Hunt could reveal the mole, it could correct compliance with “no losses” requirement in the future stages of operation. Of course, it wouldn’t revive the dead teammates, but could prevent future losses of IMF agents

    • Second compliance links Corrective Action with Requirement-2:

      • Moreover, if Ethan Hunt could reveal the mole, it could enforce compliance with “keep secret” requirement to IMF team Missions

    • Second hindrance links Obstacle with Requirement-2:

      • Kittridge’s suspicion hinders both ability of Hunt to reveal the mole and compliance with “keep secret” requirement.

  6. This structure of Model is typical for “Mission: Impossible” situations.

How to Collect Information | "Mission: Impossible": How to Successfully Accomplish It | CHAPTER III

CONTACT ME
ПИШИТЕ МНЕ

Len Kaplan

WIN-WIN FACILITATOR

Phone:

+1-904-329-0604

 

Email:

kapraz55@gmail.com

  • Black LinkedIn Icon
  • Black Facebook Icon
  • Odnoklassniki Social Icon

© 2017 By Len Kaplan. Proudly created with Wix.com