moral worth of the decisions made by Toyota
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
moral worth of the decisions made by Toyota
Read the Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee “Suggestion” System case that can be found in the sixth chapter of the textbook. Using ethical theories and principles learned in this course, especially subsidiarity and natural law, analyze the moral worth of the decisions made by Toyota. Also discuss the various options open to Toyota, and choose the one you think would have been the best. Justify the choice you make using resources from this course. You are encouraged to submit your own threads to this discussion as well as respond to threads left by other students. 350 words.
Lecture:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
Rubric:
Toyota Motor Corporation and Employee “Suggestion” System:
The principle of subsidiarity can be applied to business settings for reasons that go beyond poverty alleviation. The practices of a division of Toyota Motor Corporation are a case in point.
In 2012, Toyota sold more cars than any other company in the world, with an estimated 9.71 million vehicle sales. It has spent many years at the top of the sales list and although it has had some issues with recalls in the past several years and leadership stumbles, overall it is highly respected and regarded as an innovative company. One reason for this is the Toyota Production System (TPS), which differs significantly from the systems that have historically been used in US car production.
A joint collaboration in Fremont, California, between General Motors (GM) and Toyota that began in the early 1980s illustrates the differences in the US and Toyota systems and how the principle of subsidiarity relates. There had previously been a GM plant in Fremont, but it was the worst production facility in the US system due to the systems in place there, the relationship between management and workers, and the poor work ethic and drug and alcohol culture of workers. After it was shut down, it sat idle and no new industry moved into the facility. Toyota suggested this site as a place where GM and Toyota could collaborate. Toyota offered to teach GM all of its production facility secrets if GM taught Toyota how to work within the US market. Although Toyota had been exporting cars to the United States, it wanted to open production facilities here.
The first step of the working relationship involved former Fremont United Auto Workers workers going to Japan to for two-week training sessions. Then when enough employees were trained, the California location could open and begin production. When the US workers first arrived at the Toyota plant in Japan, they could not believe how different the production line was. In the TPS, managers and employees work together. Everything has a team-based approach. Each individual has a job to complete, but each is part of a group and a team with a leader. If someone makes a mistake or cannot keep up with production or there is some issue on the line, the worker will pull a cord that alerts others with a light and a happy little song that there is an issue. If the worker and others who come to help cannot resolve the issue, they pull the cord again and stop the entire production line. As soon as the issue is resolved, the line begins again.
After the issue is resolved, someone at the company would later find out how the issue could be dealt with in the future so there is no need to stop the line. If an employee offers a suggestion for a different type of tool or a different arrangement for storage and availability of tools or anything else that ultimately saves the company money due to a smoother production process, that employee will receive several hundred dollars in a bonus. This is part of what the Japanese call kaizen, or continuous improvement. Everyone is expected to make suggestions to improve the production process and maintain a focus on the quality, not the quantity, of the products. This explains why the US workers saw mats for the workers to stand on, cushions for them to kneel on, and shelves that travel along with them while they’re working to make reaching for tools easier and more efficient.
Although recent information is not available, the phenomenon of the Creative Idea Solution System was documented in the the 1980s and early 1990s. The system was begun in 1951 and between that time and 1988, about 20 million suggestions were turned in. It got to the point at which two million suggestions were turned in each year at a rate of forty suggestions per year per worker. About 95 percent of employees participated in the program and their suggestions were adopted at an astonishing 96 percent rate. This system made it very clear to employees that they were an integral part of the team, they were an expert in what they did on the line, their feedback was critical to the company’s success, and quality of process and product were highly valued.
In contrast, the US workers explained that they were trained not to ever stop the production line for any reason whatsoever. Henry Ford’s focus on the production line from the very beginning was quantity. If there was an error, the car should continue through the production process and could be fixed later. Everyone had to keep up with the timing of the system in order to maintain the quantity targets. The Fremont workers explained that if the bumper for a different type of car was on the line to be placed on the wrong car, they were to put on the wrong bumper and everything else around it and then it would be brought out to a lot to be fixed later. Workers could earn overtime fixing the cars, even though they might not have the expertise for the particular type of work they were doing. Not only did the workers have to continue the movement of the line if a car part was wrong or installed incorrectly but also if someone fell into a pit or had a heart attack, everything was to continue. No one ever asked the workers how consistent issues could be fixed. The workers and management did not get along at all and even though the system made costly errors and had sacrificed quality for quantity, the system remained in place.
The US workers interviewed discussed how embarrassed and ashamed they were at seeing the systems in Japan and knowing how flawed the US system was. A YouTube video created on the twentieth anniversary of the collaboration explains that the workers learned the five cornerstones of the Toyota system: mutual trust and respect, involvement, teamwork, safety, and equity. UAW workers discussed how easy it was to say something like mutual trust and respect need to be part of the workplace, but that it is something that must be part of the culture and must be worked toward. Although the plant itself won many awards after it opened, the UAW leadership explained that the real winners were the workers on the line who were making good wages, making a top-quality car, and keeping a previously closed plant alive for the workers’ jobs. Workers described their happiness, enjoyment of their jobs, pride at the products they produced, and the way they were able to support their families.
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!