Pinto Case Summary

Mr. Gioia’s decisions regarding the Pinto fires highlights the disengagement from emotion often associated with business decisions. From a business stand point, decisions have to be based on facts and financial repercussions are the ultimate deciding factor in which action to pursue. If a defect in a certain make or model of car is classified as an extremely rare incident then no action will be taken. This is governed by the premise of statistical probability. Coupled with a detailed cost versus benefits analysis the decision is quickly made in these situations to not pursue recalls (Gioia, 1992, p. 381). Furthermore, external environmental factors play a role in coursing the decision process. For example, the oil crisis in the 1970’s gave incentive for Ford Motor Company not to deal with Pinto defects as the Pinto was one of the few models Ford had on the market as a competitive gas saving model. Mr. Gioia explains from a business perspective, pulling that vehicle from the market and doing a massive recall in such an economic downturn would have been disastrous for the company. Aside from the massive financial cost to recall the Pinto’s and complete the necessary upgrades to rectify the manufacturing flaw, the shareholders would have felt the loss in the stock price drop and many employees would have been
25). Unfortunately, I cannot say that this is accurate in reflection of Dennis Gioia’s treatment of the Pinto fire problem. Liberty was taken from all the victims of the Pinto fires and the families of those victims. Immediate victims lost their lives and family members were left with a hole in their life amidst infinite questions. In retrospect, Mr. Gioia sees the error of his treatment of the Pinto problem and how he failed to do the right thing. Of course, the old saying goes “hindsight is always