Roy vagelos attacks river blindness

Roy Vagelos Attacks River Blindness, Concepts And Theories Case Study (APA Format)

Roy Vagelos Attacks River Blindness, Concepts and Theories
Instructions

This paper should consists of the theories and concepts learned as well as from the case study.

The purpose of this assignment is to show me what you have learned from this week's readings. 3 pages maximum. Please submit in APA format and needs just a little bit more research in certain areas.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Case study discussion questions

Introduction

Give an overview of the case study

Main body

What are the challenges and obstacles

Assess the health impact and capacity building of the program

What are the implications for future access programs

Conclusion

What are the lessons learned?

The Leadership Moment

Roy Vagelos & Alfredo Cristiani

Roy Vagelos and Alfredo Cristiani faced two very different dilemmas, but in the end both proved to be great leaders by standing for what they believed in while also taking the effect their decisions would have on others into consideration. Another aspect that makes Vagelos and Cristiani great leaders is that they both started off with a mission or goal and kept a focus until that goal was achieved.

In the case of Roy Vagelos a question of moral responsibility is brought to surface when as an executive at Merck & Company he has to decide between providing millions of people treatment for river blindness without gaining any profit, and with high expenses for the company or shelving the drug because of it’s lack in financial gain potential. If looking at this situation from a humanitarian point of view, the decision may seem obvious. However, when shareholders have invested in a company and expect to receive profitable returns, the decision is slightly more complicated, because as Milton Friedman says, “There is one and only one social responsibility for business, [and it is] to use it’s resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (Useem, pg. 27). Nonetheless, Vagelos manages to make the right choice, by completely ignoring Friedman’s advice.

Though Vagelos had a tough decision to make, one of the things that helped him most was that he was that he had a clear idea of what his job meant, what his responsibilities were, and what was expected of him. “‘The mission of Merck & Co., Inc., is to provide society with products and services, [and it is also to render] investors with a superior rate of return’ but that will come only on realization of the first” (Pg. 29). Vagelos refers back to the company’s mission statement, so that he knows whether his decision is accurately representing the company and helping in acting on that mission.

It seems like Vagelos has decided how to handle the situation, but Vagelos does not discard the second half of the mission statement, instead he finds a way to use the company’s short-term financial loss and use it for building trust with clients by building a favorable reputation. Ultimately, Vagelos decides that Merck will give the drug away for free forever. After discussing with colleagues for a long time, Vagelos made the decision on his own without informing the governing board before making the public announcement. Vagelos could be criticized for not communicating fully with his peers, but he asks, “would anybody around the table have made a different decision?” No one around the table said they would have made a different decision, which also highlights another thing Vagelos did correctly. Sometimes leaders talk to their colleagues too much and cannot come to a decision on his or her own, and sometimes they try to please everyone which has proven very difficult and in some instances seemed impossible, but Vagelos listened to his peers, used the mission statement, and made a decision, fully believing that it was the correct choice to make.

Vagelos used the company’s mission statement to come to a conclusion, which shows that not only is a leaders’ individual philosophy important, but that it makes a big difference when a company has a philosophy that unites everybody working for it, which is proven not only with Merck & Co., but with Johnson & Johnson and the Tylenol product recall. Although recalling the Tylenol products cost J & J a lot of money, every employee knew what their responsibility as a whole included, and that what mattered most was the well being of those who used the products.

What makes this story admirable is that Vagelos opted to serve millions of others in need though it was not financially beneficial in the short term by “stepping beyond the confines of narrow, short-term interest and accepting a broader, global responsibility” as President Jimmy Carter said (Pg. 37). This brings me to a point that is implied, but Useem did not focus as much on, that people want a leader who is relatable and can show human compassion, which becomes even more evident when discussing Cristiani.

Alfredo Cristiani proves to be a great leader in many ways, though he is less faced with moral responsibility issues than Vagelos; Cristiani has to make decisions that will make an entire country come together. Cristiani has to find a way to unite a people with so many different desires, demands, interests and philosophies to bring peace to El Salvador.

Cristiani almost single-handedly made peace in El Salvador a plausible idea, after the toll of deaths had reached great numbers and so many lived in fear, and the fact that he managed to do so, without eliminating any of the political parties shows that it is possible to coexist. One of the ways Cristiani was able to overcome such an obstacle was by knowing, as Vagelos did, what his responsibility was when he became President. Cristiani was also very wise in how he handled the situation because often we attack or reject the ideas of others when they are unknown or inferior to our own. President Cristiani said, “Defining a problem is key to solving a problem […] What you have to learn is that the other guy has a different definition of the problem” (Pg. 252). Too often, we don’t even know what we are fighting for with each other, and Cristiani quickly tries to find out what it is that the FMLN want, to determine how a peaceful compromise could be made. Cristiani also said, “We had to know what they want, what we want, and how it is possible to come together.” (Pg. 252) seeking an agreement, rather than to impose his own beliefs on everybody else.

Cristiani did not only show leadership skills once he was formally a leader as President, but also in the process of becoming one. Though Cristiani lacked the draw of attention that President Ronald Reagan, or “The Great Communicator” had, Cristiani made up for it by, for example, speaking in the first person plural. Always speaking using “we” and “us”, making sure to let his people know that he was on their “side” and that everyone was a part of this team.

Alfredo Cristiani could have been criticized for leaving El Salvador in the hands of others a number of times during the civil war, but Cristiani states, “I picked good ministers, I told them to do the job without my interference” (Pg. 255). Cristiani avoided micromanaging, and showed his team that he had complete confidence and trust in what they were doing. Cristiani distributed power not only within his governing team, but also throughout El Salvador when he decided that it was time for a peaceful El Salvador, that was meant to be governed not by one interest but by everybody, and when he demonstrated that every voice should be heard, whether it be of the rebels or others. Useem accurately states, “Pick your associates well, back them fully, empower them with both accountability and responsibility, and they will produce far more than you ever will achieve on your own” (Pg. 257). Cristiani does just that, just as Johnson & Johnson had done so in the Tylenol recall.

The most important thing Cristiani did was stop and listen to what others wanted, Useem says, “Consistent, unrelenting efforts to hear and reconcile diverse positions, even when rooted in deeply entrenched and immensely powerful interests, are prerequisite to overcoming any conflict and mobilizing the resources that the contending parties are withholding” (Pg. 259) and this should be applied for your board or team just as much as it does to the “enemy” or competition, it is important that everyone be heard.

Both Cristiani and Vagelos show that they are great leaders, and were both successful by doing similar things like referring back to the initial task, goal, and/or mission and making sure that they stay focused on achieving it. Another thing both did well was listen to others, those whom disagreed with them, just as much as those who did not agree with them. They both avoided micromanaging and did what was expected of them. Being the daughter of two Salvadoran parents whom abandoned their country due to the Civil War, I have heard the terror-filled stories and have myself had a chance to visit a new El Salvador, where there is no longer a 6 pm- 6 am curfew and it is remarkable to know how that happened, and that it was possible thanks to a great leader. When reading about Cristiani I felt a very optimistic sensation that maybe in this very diverse world we could find peace and tolerance for one another, and that maybe we are just waiting for the leaders to guide us in that direction.

4