Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Learning outcomes Determine when to resolve conflict through arbitration and when to resolve conflict through the court system. Reflect upon the types of organizational misconduct and determine what behaviors constitute organizational misconduct. Argue whether the behaviors that constitute organizational misconduct are universal or may vary according to the context. Analyze whether actions that might be considered misconduct might be acceptable in certain situations and contexts. Build additional definitions of organizational misconduct that might pertain to non-Western, developed country contexts. Analyze how media and popular opinion might influence perceptions of organizational misconduct. Case overview/Synopsis Carlos Mattos (he/him/his) was the founder/president/CEO of Hyundai Colombia Automotriz S.A. from 1992 to 2015. He and his company introduced the Hyundai brand to the Colombian market and made it one of the best-selling automobile brands in the nation. When the company began experiencing losses, Hyundai headquarters terminated the contract and awarded the distribution to an Ecuadorian firm.The contract between Hyundai Colombia Automotriz S.A. and Hyundai Motor Company stipulates that arbitration is the appropriate dispute mechanism. However, Mattos contemplates whether arbitration is his best option or if he should take Hyundai Motor Company to court. He also contemplates suing the Ecuadorian firm for unfair competition.As students analyze Mattos’ decision, they will determine whether the actions of the any of the parties might be considered organizational misconduct. This case is not about assigning blame. It is not about deciphering whether anyone is guilty. Instead, the case is designed to promote critical thinking about the concept of organizational misconduct. Most literature and understanding of organizational misconduct are from a Western, developed country point of view. In this case, there are three key actors, all from emerging markets. Each may have participated in some sort of misconduct, depending on how the term is defined. Complexity academic level This case is appropriate for advanced, undergraduate or master's level international business students in classes such as international management, intercultural management, international negotiation or business ethics. Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 5: International Business.
Learning outcomes Determine when to resolve conflict through arbitration and when to resolve conflict through the court system. Reflect upon the types of organizational misconduct and determine what behaviors constitute organizational misconduct. Argue whether the behaviors that constitute organizational misconduct are universal or may vary according to the context. Analyze whether actions that might be considered misconduct might be acceptable in certain situations and contexts. Build additional definitions of organizational misconduct that might pertain to non-Western, developed country contexts. Analyze how media and popular opinion might influence perceptions of organizational misconduct. Case overview/Synopsis Carlos Mattos (he/him/his) was the founder/president/CEO of Hyundai Colombia Automotriz S.A. from 1992 to 2015. He and his company introduced the Hyundai brand to the Colombian market and made it one of the best-selling automobile brands in the nation. When the company began experiencing losses, Hyundai headquarters terminated the contract and awarded the distribution to an Ecuadorian firm.The contract between Hyundai Colombia Automotriz S.A. and Hyundai Motor Company stipulates that arbitration is the appropriate dispute mechanism. However, Mattos contemplates whether arbitration is his best option or if he should take Hyundai Motor Company to court. He also contemplates suing the Ecuadorian firm for unfair competition.As students analyze Mattos’ decision, they will determine whether the actions of the any of the parties might be considered organizational misconduct. This case is not about assigning blame. It is not about deciphering whether anyone is guilty. Instead, the case is designed to promote critical thinking about the concept of organizational misconduct. Most literature and understanding of organizational misconduct are from a Western, developed country point of view. In this case, there are three key actors, all from emerging markets. Each may have participated in some sort of misconduct, depending on how the term is defined. Complexity academic level This case is appropriate for advanced, undergraduate or master's level international business students in classes such as international management, intercultural management, international negotiation or business ethics. Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 5: International Business.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.