In the wake of everything described in the case study, Wells Fargo has fired many employees, clawed back bonuses from executives, replaced many of its directors, dismantled its sales incentive system and made other changes. Do you think these changes were made out of a utilitarian calculation designed to avoid further monetary penalties, a desire to avoid the shame and embarrassment the bank’s managers and employees were feeling, or a combination of both? If a combination, which do you think played a bigger role? Why?

These changes made by Wells Fargo were made as a result of a combination of utilitarian calculation to avoid further monetary penalties and the desire to avoid the shame and embarrassment the bank's managers and employees were feeling.

The factor that played a bigger role is the utilitarian calculation because it foresaw that it could lose more through monetary penalties.

Explanation:

Wells Fargo must have factored in the benefits and harms that could result from its actions and then compared them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions. It then figured out that it could pay it better to make amends instead of facing the torrents of accusations for fraud. Admitting that one is wrong from the beginning and showing signs of changes is less painful overall.