Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

Running head: ROBIN CHASE, ZIPCAR AND AN INCONVENIENT DISCOVERY

ANALYSIS

Thelma Landeros
Research Paper 2: Robin Chase, Zipcar and an Inconvenient Discovery Analysis
Capstone II - ORG 4361
Rebecca Lynch, Ph.D.
Jun 02, 2019
Robin Chase, Zipcar and an Inconvenient Discovery Analysis 2

Abstract
In todays’ business organizations, loyalty to a company is key to the growth of any firm.

Leadership qualities can inspire employees, but a leaders’ weaknesses can affect the workers as

well. In this artifact, I will explain about the conflicting loyalties to the Zipcar firm with its

members, evaluate leaders’ strengths and weaknesses, including safeguard the company’s

relationship with its members. This consists of discussing some of the challenges a company

might encounter. I will analyze the impact on the organization, the workers, leadership, and the

customers. As a final point, I will provide an explanation of the ethical system to be used for this

company.
Robin Chase, Zipcar and an Inconvenient Discovery Analysis 3

Organizational ethics that are used within every sector in a business is considered

significant. This takes into consideration when a leader makes ethical decisions to determine the

success or failure in a company. Truth versus loyalty, is an ethical tension that pits our loyalty to

friends, family, groups, and organizations against our desire to tell the truth (Johnson, 2016).

Problematic situations in an organization may arise if an employee decides to tell the truth or be

deceitful to the boss. This is to help protect other group members or the individual. The points

explained in this artifact about the Zipcar firm with the conflicting loyalties with its members,

evaluate leaders’ strengths and weaknesses, including safeguard the company’s relationship with

its members. This consists of discussing some of the challenges a company might encounter. It is

essential to analyze the impact on the organization, the workers, the leadership and the

customers. In the end, an explanation of the ethical system will be used for this company.

Zipcar is a car-sharing company owned by Robin Chase and Antje Danielson. Zipcar is a

rental car business that allows a person to become a member and can lease a car for an hour to

several days if needed. The rental includes car insurance, and the Zipcar vehicles are located

around most convenient locations around the city. Cars are used almost exclusively for short,

local trips, as the cost becomes prohibitive for longer distances (Bardhi, & Eckhardt, 2012).

Prices are low, and some clients prefer renting a car through Zipcar, then owning a vehicle. This

prevents clients from purchasing an insurance, extra mechanical expenses, or a car payment.

Robin Chase wanted a business that had real tangible value not just monetary value

(Ancona & Reavis, 2014). By analyzing Robin C’s leadership, it is essential to consider that she

applied the utilitarianism ethical theory perspective, defined as the greatest good for all humans

as free citizens holding equal basic rights cooperating within an egalitarian economic system

(Avella, 2017).
Robin Chase, Zipcar and an Inconvenient Discovery Analysis 4

For instance, Robin Chase’s hiring philosophy was motivated by the respect she had for

people’s professional expertise and would let her employees feel free to make mistakes.

Keeping up to date in a continuously changing world, Robin Chase focused on encouraging

creativity, and an organization with a spirit of entrepreneurship. Likewise, due to his love for

biking, the employee Larry Slotnick was assigned to pick up, move cars and service them. This

happened by placing his bike in the back of the car eliminating the need for a second driver

(Ancona & Reavis, 2014).

The car-sharing Zipcar firm had a fair way of doing things. Robin Chase liked giving her

employees freedom in their duties. By pursuing the utilitarian theory, she could potentially

provide additional benefits to the excluded in society. This means, if the short-term is good and

the future is uncertain, her hiring decision will select the immediate good. Hiring two consultants

as part of her team was essentially another reason. Chase felt it was important to “try” before she

“bought” (Ancona & Reavis, 2014). She trusted them because they use to live in the same

neighborhood.

Robin Chase’s utilitarian ethical system of leadership approach brought a conflict with

loyalties between its members. For instance, when Robin C. hired her brother Mark Chase, he

was focused on Zipcars’ business development. Even when Mark C. had the chance to warn his

sister Robin C. at his or the other members of her team of their startup experiences, no one

warned her about raising prices. This would result in a customer repercussion, which keeping

that sort of secret, more than anything was a wrong ethical approach that Mike C., and the

members took. Mike C. should had thought of his values shared with his sister Robin C. As the

authors Ciulla, et.al suggest, “The more an issue touches upon aspects of a shared lifeworld, the

more it requires a communicative action orientation and a higher degree of participative decision
Robin Chase, Zipcar and an Inconvenient Discovery Analysis 5

making” (Ciulla, et.al., 2018). By using the communicative reasoning, a leader can participate in

ethical decision making, deliberation, and debate to specific goals and outcomes.

Furthermore, Robin Chase impacted negatively and positively on the Zipcar organization,

the workers, leadership, and the customers. To start, she hired Keefer Welch as president to

bring credibility to her management team, but in his first three months as president he was not a

good fit to run the business due to his lack of care about burn rate (Ancona & Reavis, 2014). Mr.

Keefer W. positioned was never replaced, and his removal cost the company to lose money. This

made an investor infuriated and reduced his liability to less than half to the Zipcar organization.

Furthermore, Robin Chase influenced positively her Zipcar business by maintaining her

position to keep the launch date. This happened when she approved the new technology to be

used for the vehicles unlock system, taking a risk even if it meant not having the technology, she

wanted ready on time. An important fact is that advances in technology enable businesses to

track the goods they lend and connect them with new customers (Access Vs. Ownership, 2013).

Using divergent thinking, Robin C. was able to interpret and understand the relationship among

the two pieces of information.

Taking a practical approach to organizational ethics is founded on the premise that we

can develop our ethical expertise just as we develop our abilities to manage, do cost accounting,

and oversee operations (Johnson, 2016). A more practical ethical system for this company will

be a combination between the utilitarianism and the Aristotelian ethical approaches. This will

assist with decision-making guidelines, identify and define problems. Robin Chase applied

utilitarianism ethical perspective, where decisions are based on their consequences. The case

study mentioned that Robin Chase became angry at her members after the inconvenient

discovery of her members not making ethical decisions, and not telling her about the effects of
Robin Chase, Zipcar and an Inconvenient Discovery Analysis 6

raising prices. It is imperative that the utilitarianism ethical perspective to recognize all courses

of action, and to choose another possibility that produces the greatest amount of good based on

the cost-benefit analysis be used. The Aristotelian ethical approach would assist to make wise

moral choices. Focusing in ethical choices, actions, and relationships with the organization,

customers, vendors, and general public.

Ultimately, Robin Chase thought of the car-sharing concept as a solution to using a car,

but not for full time usage. This covers a wide range of environment contributions with the

unique feature to structure the nature of consumption. This means, if car- and ride-share services

reduce the number of miles we drive as a nation, they will contribute to much-needed change in

the U.S. transportation sector (Tuttle, & Wadsworth, 2014). Focusing on environmental

sustainability, which refers to the preservation of environmental resources and biodiversity,

creation of sustainable access to safe drinking water, and enhancement of quality of life among

the most impoverished (Johnson, 2016).

In conclusion, I must become a resonant, powerful, and positive leader. The Zipcar

company will benefit using the utilitarian and Aristotelian ethical approaches. Using the ethical

systems will assist me as a future leader to foster greater autonomy, empowerment, and input

into decision-making. Organizational ethics in every sector within a business is significant. This

takes account when a leader makes ethical decisions to determine the success or failure in a

business. If something goes bad in a company, leaders must change it in order to keep it

sustainable.
Robin Chase, Zipcar and an Inconvenient Discovery Analysis 7

References

Access Vs. Ownership. (2013). Marketing Insights, 25(3), 5. Retrieved from https://search-
ebscohostcom.ezproxy.southtexascollege.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9257
5391&site=eds-live&scope=site
Ancona, D., & Reavis, C. (2014). Robin Chase, Zipcar and an Inconvenient Discovery. MIT
Sloan Management, 4.
Avella, J. R. (2017). The Dilemma of Ethical Leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(2),
42–44. https://doi-org.ezproxy.southtexascollege.edu/10.1002/jls.21522
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898. Retrieved from
https://doiorg.ezproxy.southtexascollege.edu/10.1086/666376
Ciulla, J. B., Knights, D., Mabey, C., & Tomkins, L. (2018). Guest Editors’ Introduction:
Philosophical Approaches to Leadership Ethics II: Perspectives on the Self and
Responsibility to Others. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(3), 245–250. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.southtexascollege.edu/10.1017/beq.2018.16
Johnson, C. E. (2016). Ethical Decision Making and Action. In C. E. Johnson, Organizational
Ethics A Practical Approach (p. 91). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tuttle, H., & Wadsworth, B. (2014). The Case of Car Sharing. Earthwise, 1–4. Retrieved from
https://searchebscohostcom.ezproxy.southtexascollege.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=8
gh&AN=96414131&site=eds-live&scope=site

Potrebbero piacerti anche