Drawing an illustration form Milgram experiment which was based on obedience to authority, the subject performance was coursed by the experimenter. Punishing the learner for not answering the correctly might be argued to be a good strategy but what fascinated most in this test is the means of punishment and the extremes. I think that it would be wise if the experimenter would have put in place more humane measures to punish the learner other than administering shock which would in a worst-case scenario cause severe damage and harm to the individual. I also think that the subject should have had the freedom to decide what he or she should have done. In the context of an organization, pleasing leaders should not be at the expense of violating one’s values and character. Therefore, according to Harman’s theory, it is not safe to judge the subjects who continued administering the shock to the learner since looking at the situation they were in, they were pushed by their seniors to continue with the experiment which might be termed as obedience to the authority. To resolve this mess, people need to evaluate the notion of character and how it affects and reflect on the employee’s performance. It should be taken back to the drawing board where character and ethics are clearly stipulated with no attempt of being bias where the main goal of business ethics being directed towards personal responsibility (Solomon, 2003). By this, I mean that we should not place much emphasis on virtues in business instead we should look into both personal responsibility and the factors of circumstance.