Siemens
1. Corruption was “embedded in the business culture” and is the strongest explanation for the magnitude of corruption present. The fact that employees used the term “useful money” to describe bribery indicates how rooted corruption was at Siemens. Since corruption had become a common practice, employees working at Siemens saw it as a regular part of day-to-day business, rather than a moral dilemma.
The deep corruption culture had two detrimental effects. The common practice justified the action and those on the edge were persuaded through peer pressure. The embedded corruption also helped prevent employees from going against the practice. For an employee at the time, the idea of protesting would have been too daunting and a feeling of hopelessness would have stopped them from speaking-up.
Siemens was operating on an international level and so the size of the company made it difficult for governments to stop corruption. When there is nobody questioning your conduct, it is easy to continue as before. The size of the company and the embedded culture also made it difficult for Siemens to adapt to change. The companies’ inability to adjust to change meant that for the managers making the decisions, there was only one solution; to continue with the bribery.
2.I think that at the time, corruption had become such an embedded culture that the practice of bribery would not have seemed to be as harmful as we now know it is. Therefore, I do not think it is realistic that a manager would even take a stand against corruption.
Before the Siemens scandal, reinforcement by governments was not a common practice. Even though everyone involved knew it was illegal, I don’t think that bribery had such a strong negative connotation as it does today. This is partly because the Siemens case itself helped to create the negative image we now associate with corruption.
3.There are two main ways that Siemens distorted competition. More directly, Siemens would squeeze out their
The deep corruption culture had two detrimental effects. The common practice justified the action and those on the edge were persuaded through peer pressure. The embedded corruption also helped prevent employees from going against the practice. For an employee at the time, the idea of protesting would have been too daunting and a feeling of hopelessness would have stopped them from speaking-up.
Siemens was operating on an international level and so the size of the company made it difficult for governments to stop corruption. When there is nobody questioning your conduct, it is easy to continue as before. The size of the company and the embedded culture also made it difficult for Siemens to adapt to change. The companies’ inability to adjust to change meant that for the managers making the decisions, there was only one solution; to continue with the bribery.
2.I think that at the time, corruption had become such an embedded culture that the practice of bribery would not have seemed to be as harmful as we now know it is. Therefore, I do not think it is realistic that a manager would even take a stand against corruption.
Before the Siemens scandal, reinforcement by governments was not a common practice. Even though everyone involved knew it was illegal, I don’t think that bribery had such a strong negative connotation as it does today. This is partly because the Siemens case itself helped to create the negative image we now associate with corruption.
3.There are two main ways that Siemens distorted competition. More directly, Siemens would squeeze out their