Abstract
A case is presented about a company who has hired a supervisor from another subsidiary in the company. In an open department meeting, the system department manager described a concern that promotions were given based on likeability not work quality. The new supervisor met privately with the assistant department manager and exclaimed that she would not accept individuals that are not team players. She requested the managers’ names and expressed if he did not provide information about anyone hurting the company, that he would be considered part of the problem. The following analysis will explore ethical issues from the justice perspective of the assistant manager, supervisor, the company, and stakeholders. Various alternatives will
…show more content…
Should Steven comply with one, both, or none of those requests? (b) Honesty and integrity - Steven may be making inaccurate accusations which could blemish the reputation of the named managers. (c) Conflict of Interest – Where is Steven’s loyalty? To himself, his coworkers, other managers, or the company? (d) Trust - Why did Stephen bring the topic up in the team meeting in front of everyone rather than in private to a manager?
Stakeholders
Stakeholders include: (a) Steven, as he brought up the concern to the new supervisor. (b) Kristin, as an ambitious supervisor, new to this subsidiary. (c) The company and its parent company based on implications of favoritism. (d) The other employees and managers in the firm are stakeholders as they may be affected by an investigation of the allegation. (e) Former employees, if the allegation is found correct, and they want to return to work at this company. (f) Stockholders, as they would not want a reputation blemish of this nature.
Possible Alternatives and Ethics of Alternatives from a Justice
…show more content…
(a) The ethics are, Steven could unfairly jeopardize his job if he does not provide the names. He could also be unfairly protecting unethical managers. (b) Practical constraints are that Kristin might be trying to make a name for herself (Butts, 2018) by cleaning up favoritism. Kristin might fire him or have him watched. Steven publicly accused managers without proof. Other employees heard Steven’s claim at the reception and unfair rumors might be created.
Alternative 5 – Steven retracts his accusation. (a) The ethics are that others at the reception heard Steven’s claim so the managers and Steven’s reputation may be blemished. It is not fair to the managers if they did not do what Steven accused. If they did, then Steven is effectively letting it continue by not whistleblowing. (b) Practical constraints are; Kristin might watch him and prevent promotions for him. Steven might not prevent the continuation of a favoritism problem that other employees will be subject to.
Recommendation and
Their organizational initiatives are often self-serving; however, the emerging workforce isn’t motivated by selfish managers. This selfish behavior often turns into unethical conduct. Unethical dealings in the workplace are always wrong. It is crucial to promote ethical behavior. Everyone must understand that once caught, unethical behavior is not just a problem for those directly involved, it is everyone’s problem.
When the employees saw that the managers were receiving rewards and motivation for work they were lying about doing, the employees became upset. The employees complained about the unfairness that they were receiving. The employees began producing less work and less productivity. Rewarding and motivating their employees should have been one of their top priorities for the company.
Everyone has the rights to express how they feel but in certain situations those rights can been taken over board especially in the court cases Immunomedics, Inc. v. Jane Doe, 342 N.J. Super. 160. “Moonshine” at first was using her rights of freedom of speech expressing how she felt about the particular company Immunomedics. I agree that there is nothing wrong with expressing you’re feeling about a company, but you have to be smart in how and the ways you do so. “Moonshine” wasn’t quit smart when disclosing confidently information about the company which they signed a binding contract stating that employee wasn’t allowed to share information about the company. I agree with that “moonshine” should be found guilty since they breached company
In doing so, he compromises his own moral ethics; however, the chance of Dwight being exposed is limited. If caught, Dwight can fall back on the training relationship and how being a trainee his career would be likely ruined by Michael if he reported him. In addition, many case studies provide evidence where the whistleblower is punished indirectly through limited advancement opportunities or other various forms of retaliation. By choosing to ignore the company policy and accept the reward for his silence, Dwight has sacrificed his personal ethics.
In the third situation, the one that involves the company’s softball team, I would take Action B, that is, seek the opinion of
There are multiple crime television shows that are based on a true story or fiction. A well known television show is Law and Order Special Victims Unit, which deals with rape and assault cases. This particular episode deals with a domestic violence case between a retired football star, AJ Martin, and his girlfriend, Paula Bryant. I will be using the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is an interview with the members in a household about reported and unreported crime that occurred within the last six months. “NVCS provides information of characteristics of victims, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status and household income” (Truman and Morgan). Official statistics like the NCVS would be used for comparing its demographics
Whistleblowers were never treated with hospitality. In general, 90% of whistleblowers lost their jobs or were demoted, regardless of the industry; 27% faced lawsuits; 26% had psychiatric or medical referrals; 17% lost their homes, and 8% went bankrupt (Waters 2008). As highly righteous as whistleblowers are, they also suffer severe consequences. In Hughes Aircraft case, the company's employees who decided to blow the whistle, Goodearl and Aldred were extremely affected and treated unfairly, so much so that " [Goodearl] and her husband had to file for bankruptcy, and Aldred was on welfare for a year before she could find another job."(The Hughes Whistleblowing Case , n.d.). Hence, the main focus of this paper is to determine whether or not whistle blowing is really worth the trouble, even though it is almost always ethically correct.
Human Resource Action: Schedule a meeting with discuss her inappropriate workplace behavior, and next steps. First, thoroughly review the complaint against John. Secondly, schedule a meeting with Jill to discuss her inappropriate comments and workplace behavior. Assured Jill that her sexual harassment complaint is being investigated. However, it does not excuse her inappropriate comments or behavior, which should cease immediately, or result in a disciplinary actions. Furthermore, recommend Jill contact the confidential Employee Assistance Program (EAP) service to discuss this matter, which is obviously causing
We all want to be treated with respect, but to get respect one needs to give it. It is also important to be honest, especially to those close with you. Living this way will not only make you feel better about yourself but the relationships with the people around you will grow stronger. Justin should own up to his mistakes before the manager finds out through someone else and he will then lose any trust that his manager had in him. This is also goes for his co-workers. If they manager finds out they were covering for him that would affect the trust she had in them as
Even when significant concerns are properly reported through an employee's chain of command, if those concerns are not acted upon, it is typical that the reporting employee will avoid any further action, satisfied that he or she had met their ethical obligations. When nothing changed following Sherry's actions, she took it a further step, believing that her moral obligation extended beyond simply sharing her concerns. Rather, she felt the need to ensure that those concerns were, in fact, communicated higher into the organizational leadership of Citibank. While it was never Sherry's intention to 'go public', in her analysis, she was of the view that her moral and ethical obligations extended to this step so that she could ensure the unethical practices would
It is stated in an online article titled, “Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace” that, “As an employer, you have a responsibility to maintain a workplace that is free of sexual harassment. This is your legal obligation, but it also makes good business sense. If you allow sexual harassment to flourish in your workplace, you will pay a high price in poor employee morale low productivity, and lawsuits.” (Barreiro, 2016). It is Lael’s obligation to have the best interest of her employees in mind. If she is being exposed to this unethical behavior that is taking place between an superior and an employee and she keeps quiet and refrains from stepping in to address the issue, then she is at fault just as much as Nikhil. By Lael stepping in and getting involved in the reporting would not only show loyalty to her peers, but loyalty to the organization that she holds a high regard
He has to decide whether he should weigh the value of his professional integrity more than his personal one. As a Director of Development, he knows and contributes to the secret information of the company that should not be disclosed to the public. When he signed the corporate confidentiality agreement, he made a promise to the company that he would not reveal anything related to the company’s secrets. Wigand does value his professional integrity highly and want to observe the agreement by saying: “I don’t believe that you can maintain corporate integrity without confidentiality agreement” (1999). He does not intend to violate the agreement. However, he sometimes feels compelled to reveal the fact since it is against the public interests. In this case, he has to give up one of his standards. Both sides of the case are right and ethical; the only thing that will impact the decision is how Wigand views himself. In “Defining Moments,” Badaracco (1997) states that part of the interest parties has to be sacrificed by saying “… choices between right and right are fraught with personal risk. In these cases, when managers do one right thing, they leave other right things undone. They feel they are letting others down and failing to live up to their standards.” (p.5). It insists that there isn’t any decision that will satisfy all stakeholders. Each decision can only fit part of the needs. Whoever makes the decision will feel that they lose a part of themselves. In Wigand’s defining moment, he chooses to stand up for the great majority of people and to view himself as an individual with care-base thinking. This decision leads him to a position that brought along many negative consequences. In “Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibility,” Bok (1980) states that “their careers and their ability to support themselves and their families may be unjustly impaired” (p.129). When Wigand
Many managers and organisations make the mistake of assuming that what’s wrong is illegal and what’s legal is right and if it’s legal it must be ethical. Yet many ethical dilemmas present themselves before the decision makers where right and wrong can not be clearly identified. They involve conflict between interactive parts – “the individual against the organisation or the societ...
The way to handle this issue is to confront this employee. This employee may have inner lying issues of
There are 7 different Characteristics of Effective Self- Disclosure. The first characteristic is, is the other person important to you? In this instance of Ramon and Julie’s talk of promotion. She should have been important to Ramon. She is his boss and she signs his paychecks so I think she would be important to him. He should have left out the idea that everyone who doesn’t own a house at age 40 is a loser. The next characteristics is, is the disclosure appropriate? The disclosure that he wanted to know if others quit because they didn’t get a promotion. This topic was not appropriate and I would have not of asked that. Plus, Bill and Latisha don’t know why they others quit, it’s just office gossip. The third characteristic of effective self- disclosure is the risk of disclosing reasonable. This happened when Ramon insisted that he is only on payroll because of his ethnicity. He could have gotten scolded by Julie for saying such a thing, but, Julie thought he was trust worthy. She said that there are going to be personnel movement soon to him. There is also is this disclosure relevant to the situation at hand? This happened when Ramon said he needed more money so he could pay off his mortgage on his house. I feel like that was a good thing to disclose to Julie. This showed that he really did need to make more money and wasn’t asking for a promotion out of luxury. The fifth characteristic is, is the disclosure replicated? It did happen once when they were talking. Ramon said he was looking at other jobs, and Julie responded to that disclosure with a promotion will be coming soon. So that was a good replication, but there is a bad one. When Ramon asked about people who have quit because they didn’t get the promotion. Julie responded to that with she can’t talk about past employees, or why they left. That was a horrible thing to ask your boss. The second to last characteristic is, will the effect be constructive? This happened when Ramon said that every who