TYLENOL: JOHNSON & JOHNSON’S CRISIS MANAGEMENT CASE IS NOW A CLASSIC

The 1982 Tylenol poisonings is the case that put “crisis management” into the permanent management lexicon. The facts are legendary. In the fall of 1982, a murderer added 65 milligrams of cyanide to some Tylenol capsules while they were on store shelves. Seven people were killed, including three persons in one family Johnson & Johnson (J&I), makers of Tylenol, quickly recalled and destroyed 31 million capsules at an expense of about $100 million. James Burke, the company CEO, made numerous appearances in TV ads and in news conferences notifying consumers of the actions the company was taking.

Tamper-resistant packaging was quickly introduced, and the sales of Tylenol swiftly snapped back to near pre-crisis sales levels. The perpetrator of this crime was never found.

Many continue to hold the Tylenol case up as the classic response to a crisis. Experts argue that ‘fessing up and taking corrective action quickly is the best form of crisis management. A major lesson to come out of the Tylenol crisis is that companies can take action quickly and effectively and prosper in spite of extreme adversity that befalls them.

1.       Some say it was easy for J&J to take this action because the crisis did not originate within the company. Did this fact set the stage for the company’s quick recovery? Would things have been different had the company been at fault?

2.       How is the Tylenol case similar to or different from Ford and Firestone’s linkage with dangerous tires or WorldCom, Tyco, Enron, and HealthSouth’s malfeasance resulting in company leaders being accused of scheming to enrich themselves at the injury of others?

3.       Was J&J really being socially responsible or were they quickly acting in their own best financial interests?

Souce: Eric Dezenhall, Tylenol Can’t Cure All Crises,” USA Today (March 18, 2004)

Why Should One Be Ethical?

 There is already something odd about this question.  It is like asking, “Why are bachelors 

unmarried?”  They are unmarried by definition.  If they were married, they would not be 

bachelors.  It is the same with ethics.  To say that one  should do something is another way of 

saying it is ethical.  If it is not ethical, then one should not do it.   

 Perhaps when business people ask why they should be ethical, they have a different 

question in mind: what is the motivation for being good?  Is their something in it for them? 

It is perfectly all right to ask if there is a reward for being good, but this has nothing to do 

with whether one should be good.  It makes no sense to try convince people that they should be 

good by pointing to the rewards that may follow.  One should be good because “good” is, by 

definition, that which one should be.  

 As for motivation, good behavior often brings a reward, but not every time.  Think about 

it.  If it were always in one’s interest to be good, there would be no need for ethics.  We could 

simply act selfishly and forget about obligation.  People invented ethics precisely because it does 

not always coincide with self interest.  

What is Ethics?

Some years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, "What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following:

"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong."
"Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what the law requires."
"Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts."
"I don't know what the word means."

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Business Ethics