As a Sales Representative at Microtech, Essay Example

As a sales representative at Microtech, I intend to establish a relationship with prospective clients based on one collaborative vision. I would hope to provide computers and technical support packages and in return, clients are endowed with a product that enables them to move forward successfully.

That being said, I have encountered a perplexing yet promising business proposal.  As a commission based employee, I have been asked to provide 3,000 computers and 3 years’ worth of technical support to a fortune 500 company.  Currently, our warehouse holds only 1,000 computers; leaving 2,000 in the hands of manufactures who are back ordered for over 4 months.

Regardless of the potential boost in commission and stock options, I will not fully commit to this contract. I will not promise something I cannot deliver and risk the reputation of my company for my personal gain.  I would expect my superiors to question this decision and inquire further.  I recognize that I am a representation of my management team, and would likely be ridiculed for not “closing the deal,” or “reaping the reward.”  They are under a lot of pressure to produce sales and this “simple” profit increase would lift the burden of hitting quota.  Considering their disapproval, I would still hope to minimize future disappointment with no agreement.  My direct manager might not have all the substantial information regarding this proposal, and therefore, might be acting impulsively and without consideration of all parties involved. I expect to encounter co-workers who are stock oriented and would hope for such a large scale sale.   Those who are self-driven and focused on personal success might promptly disagree or find my decision selfish and without consideration.  They are not wrong in feeling the way that they do; we make decisions based on experience and personal goals and I don’t fault them for feeling the way they do (Hosmer Viii).

Personally, I am in full consideration of my family.  Initially, I was enthralled by the idea and would hope to put my commission toward my children’s future.  I was hoping to come home to my wife with good news and the ability to provide for my family.  Unfortunately, I can’t risk failure in the future.

Had I decided to close the deal with the fortune 500 company, I would have been issued a large commission.  Stock options at Microtech would skyrocket and those who are invested enough would be grateful. In the present, the rewards of this transaction are immense and exciting. On the other hand, 2 months down the road, my client doesn’t receive their computers. This client is first confused and after further digging, realizes there is no exact delivery date as manufactures are backed up.  Upon this realization, the integrity of Microtech is questioned.  The established rapport is shattered by our miss-leading and trust is non-existent. Future deals with this company are no longer an option. Companies associated would likely get wind of this faulty agreement. Even though Microtech is not liable for manufacturer delays, I would expect to be fired for miss-representation.  My co-workers and superiors would make their own assumptions, and my job prospects would diminish.

Without agreeing, I am looking to establish trust; providing the client with the truth about the delay in computer shipment and would hope to provide some alternative approaches.  Ensuring that my job is secure and I can provide for my family.  I am looking to avoid a potential disaster that may shake the core values with which my company operates.

An alternative approach to this business dilemma has recently surfaced.  My significant other, an owner of a large computer dealership has proposed that her company “Bleevit,” provide the remaining 2,000 computers.  These refurbished computers would be the exact mode that the fortune 500 company is looking for.  This is a promising business opportunity for both Microtech and Bleevit (myself and my partner).

Seeming like the perfect opportunity, there are a few important aspects to consider before moving forward.  The computers provided by Bleevit are refurbished; subject to technical difficulties. This would require additional technical support which would surpass the 3 year contract which result in a loss for Microtech long term. Can this be negotiated? Or will the potential technical difficulties and refurbished computers not suffice the client’s needs?

The potential risks for failure and future economic loss for Microtech and the fortune 500 company are not decisions that should be made by myself or my significant other. In the event that this transaction ends negatively, I will no longer be involved in enduring the effects. With plans to open my own computer dealership, I will no longer be employed by Microtech in the future.  If I am planning on ceasing my employment, I can’t make decisions on behalf of Microtech because “I might not have their best interest at heart (Peck).”

Furthermore, Bleevit would now be legally deemed an “issuer,” selling a mass quantity of computers to a fortune 500 company  would require that any and all computer conditions are reported accordingly. This company would be made aware of the potential for technical issues which would then require additional maintenance resulting in further expense (Peck).  Bleevit would also be required to disclose information regarding the cheap child labor in Mexico that they rely on for mass production (Peck).

It seems that the decision regarding this business investment is not based on the “moral compass,” rather the legality with which business collaborations are made.  If this company wants to invest in Bleevit, they should be privy to all necessary information before moving forward.

Personally, I would not think it wise to allow such a large business transaction to occur between significant others. Each and every person establishes their own beliefs, desires, and goals.  In a business relationship, regardless of the level of intimacy, guidelines should be adhered to and the mixing of these two worlds might prove dangerous in the long run.

It is unethical to trade on non-public information.  Everyone is not made aware of such information which places some at a disadvantage. This allows for those who have inside information to exploit the market and reap the benefits for themselves with no regard for others. Those who are negatively impacted by this unethical means of success are deterred from engaging in future market transactions.  Less investment in stock related activity becomes a future economic issue.

As an investment manager, I am looking to conduct myself in a manner that is conducive with client productivity.  In the presence of insider trading, there could be reasonable reward on behalf of my clients. Unfortunately, insider information becomes a conflict of interest. If my client’s finances were to gain momentum from this information, I am also financially compensated.  My personal financial growth should be based on truth and abide by government rules and regulations.  If I choose to put myself at risk by utilizing this information, that is my sole responsibility. Operating in a professional capacity, I should always look to put my clients’ best interest before my own.

In reference to Kant’s “categorical imperative,” trading insider information is not a morally sound decision. The execution of stock trades involves two parties; generally one would not find it acceptable that their client’s financial actions were based on information that was not available to the general public.   On the other hand, Kant’s second categorical imperative could determine insider trading ethically acceptable.  This argument states that people should not make choices that involve using another person as a means to personal advancement in any setting.  Insider trading appears to be a selfish pursuit, but in fact, both parties benefit. The seller’s profit increases because the buyers purchase stock at a higher price.   Therefore, those involved in this transaction are successful.

This trade of information within the markets does not address the needs of our society.  In the grand scheme of things, stock information is made available to those that are well versed in financial markets of any kind.  It is not likely that traders would use their profit to address the needs of those less fortunate rather cycle their money in and out of a now predictable marketplace.