Using the CARE model, and following the bullet point format in the Example 2-10 solution, I would like you to analyze the ethical dilemma case presented below. Your submission should look EXACTLY like the sample case analysis in format (bullet points) and should contain at least as much depth of coverage and analysis as the solution in Example 2-10 (even more is better as the best grades go to the greatest depth of analysis). The point values assigned to each of the 4 sections of the case analysis are shown in your syllabus and your ability to earn the maximum points possible will be greatly enhanced by following the correct format so that I can see exactly what I need to see in a simple and efficient manner. One more time...follow the format to get the best grade. There is no need to include a title page or anything fancy unless it makes you feel good. :)

• Your case should be submitted as a PDF file.
• You should submit the case analysis as an attachment via the link found in the Week 9 Module.
• The formal case analysis assignment is due no later than the end of Week 9.

Please let me know if you have any procedural questions on this assignment.

Consider the following case example of an ethical dilemma [Yuthas and Dillard(1999)]: Granger Stokes, managing partner of the venture capital firm of Halston and Stokes, was dissatisfied with the top management of PrimeDrive, a manufacturer of computer disk drives. Halston and Stokes had invested $20 million in PrimeDrive, and the return on their investment had been below par for several years. In a tense meeting of the board of directors of PrimeDrive, Stokes exercised his firms rights as a major equity investor in PrimeDrive and fired PrimeDrives chief executive officer (CEO). He then quickly moved to have the board of directors of PrimeDrive appoint himself as the new CEO. Stokes prided himself on his hard-driving management style. At the first management meeting, he asked two of the managers to stand and fired them on the spot, just to show everyone who was in control of the company. At the budget review meeting that followed, he ripped up the departmental budgets that had been submitted for his review and yelled at the managers for their wimpy, do nothing targets. He then ordered everyone to submit new budgets calling for at least a 40% increase in sales volume and announced that he would not accept excuses for results that fell below budget. Keri Kalani, an accountant working for the production manager at PrimeDrive, discovered toward the end of the year that her boss had not been scrapping defective disk drives that had been returned by customers. Instead, he had been shipping them in new cartons to customers in order to avoid booking losses. Quality control had deteriorated during the year as a result of the drive for increased volume and returns of defective TRX drives were running as high as 15% of the new drives shipped. When she confronted her boss with her discovery, he told her to mind her own business. And then, in the way of a justification for his actions, he said, All of us managers are finding ways to hit Stokes targets. Reference Yuthas, K. and Dillard, J. (1999). Teaching ethical decision making: Adding a structuration dimension, Teaching Business Ethics 3(4), 339-361.