Propmore
1
The Propmore Corporation Case
Management
This case was developed by Dr. Peter Madsen and Dr. John Flaming. Arthur Andersen & Co. SC thanks the authors for their contributions to the Business Ethics Program.
Dr. Madsen is the Executive Director and Senior Lecturer at the Center for Advancement of
Applied Ethics, Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Flaming is a Professor of Management at the
University of Southern California. Arthur Andersen & Co, SC also thanks Mr. Harry Goem, Vice
President of Procurement for Alcoa, for his input and thoughtful reviews.
Arthur Andersen & Co, SC has sponsored and funded this project to promote discussion and awareness of ethical issues arising in the business world. Arthur Andersen & Co, SC takes no positions and expresses no views with respect to the myriad of ethical issues reflected in this case but hopes that users will facilitate and promote a dialogue on these important issues.
©1991 ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO. SC
All rights reserved. 008889 A-008
BUSINESS ETHICS
PROGRAM
2
PROPMORE CORPORATION
Overview
Don Bradford was on the fast track at the Propmore Corporation. But he wished he could slow things down a bit, given several hard choices he had to make. Propmore Corporation was a good place to work. It had sales of about $500 million per year, a net profit margin of 5 percent, and a return on equity of 15 percent. Propmore made several key components used by the aerospace industry and consumer goods market. It was a leader in its field. The company was organized by product divisions, each reporting to the Executive Vice-President. Its operations were decentralized, with broad decision- making capability at the divisional level. However, at the corporate level functional departments (Purchasing, R&D, Personnel, and Marketing) set company policy and coordinated divisional activities in these areas. Propmore was financially successful, and it treated its people well, as Don Bradford’s experience showed.
The Propmore Corporation Case
Management
This case was developed by Dr. Peter Madsen and Dr. John Flaming. Arthur Andersen & Co. SC thanks the authors for their contributions to the Business Ethics Program.
Dr. Madsen is the Executive Director and Senior Lecturer at the Center for Advancement of
Applied Ethics, Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Flaming is a Professor of Management at the
University of Southern California. Arthur Andersen & Co, SC also thanks Mr. Harry Goem, Vice
President of Procurement for Alcoa, for his input and thoughtful reviews.
Arthur Andersen & Co, SC has sponsored and funded this project to promote discussion and awareness of ethical issues arising in the business world. Arthur Andersen & Co, SC takes no positions and expresses no views with respect to the myriad of ethical issues reflected in this case but hopes that users will facilitate and promote a dialogue on these important issues.
©1991 ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO. SC
All rights reserved. 008889 A-008
BUSINESS ETHICS
PROGRAM
2
PROPMORE CORPORATION
Overview
Don Bradford was on the fast track at the Propmore Corporation. But he wished he could slow things down a bit, given several hard choices he had to make. Propmore Corporation was a good place to work. It had sales of about $500 million per year, a net profit margin of 5 percent, and a return on equity of 15 percent. Propmore made several key components used by the aerospace industry and consumer goods market. It was a leader in its field. The company was organized by product divisions, each reporting to the Executive Vice-President. Its operations were decentralized, with broad decision- making capability at the divisional level. However, at the corporate level functional departments (Purchasing, R&D, Personnel, and Marketing) set company policy and coordinated divisional activities in these areas. Propmore was financially successful, and it treated its people well, as Don Bradford’s experience showed.