Study Case

If a noncompeting agreement is signed, then NONE! If, however, you did not have to sign anything restricting your knowledge, you should be able to share what you have learned. There are, of course, 'trade secrets' that should remain so unethical information would be any information about the first company. Discussing anything about the first company is unethical. Salary information shouldn't be shared. I don't think personal information about anyone at the first company should be provided. Rooted in a company's culture are many idiosyncrasies that might not work for another organization. So, if in fact information does get passed, it might be of no value to the new company. Most high-turnover jobs don't possess enough knowledge to really do any damage if the information does get out. Companies should play fairly in the competition game and not spy on one another, and not causing harm to others. The information that is given out could hurt the other company and you need to understand what is considered acceptable and unacceptable information ethically. For example if I were to be hired from Chase Bank to soma bank, I would not be discussing products that would have to do with my Chase. If I were to be hired on as a teller than I could use the practices that I learned from chase and share them with my new company. This information would not harm Chase and are not considered trade secrets.

You can learn the type of character the company has For example, the company and its workers' discipline, methods, productivity, and many more. There are some differences between goods and services, which definitely affect how you think about managing both the customer interaction and the marketing generally. Example, services tend to be perishable in the sense that they cannot be inventoried. Consider the impact of this element on airline seat pricing; it's a huge driver in that industry! Service is difficult to control. For example, one lawyer is not interchangeable with another lawyer, even though they may work for the same firm. This is very different from the world of products.

Time Warner and America on Line did not apply business ethics, moral rules, and regulations that guide judgment in their decision on a merge. Ethical issues occur on all levels of a company, from a mail clerk to a CEO and in many different forms from stealing a paper to the total disregard of shareholders. Ethics applies to everyone within a company. Corporate social responsibility is the implementation by a company of a planned focal point for satisfying the legal, ethical, economic and philanthropic responsibilities expected of the company by its stakeholders beyond the pursuit of profits. TW and AOL did not exhibit corporate social responsibility. Steve Case was more focused on satisfying his personal goal of AOL becoming a blockbuster global communications company rather than its employees and stockholders. Time Warner should