Abstract
The assignment/paper is an ethics exercise with two different cases to analyze and determines what direction/decision I would take in each case. The first case is to justify my decision to allow a top performing staff member, Kay, to apply for a different position within the company. Kay and I both are aware that I would not be allowed to replace her due to budget cut and a friend of the boss is also applying for the position. The second case is Marty has miss applied an expense for a local community development committee dinner meeting.
Case 1: Stephanie Lyncheski, after careful consideration and working through the Checklist for Making ...view middle of the document...
The individualism view advances long-term self-interests. The moral rights view respects and protects the fundamental rights of people. And the justice view treats people impartially and fairly.
The utilitarian, moral rights and justice views would require I approve Kay’s request to apply for the new position because she is deemed to be a long term employee for the company and is a high performer which in the long term is best for Kay’s growth within the company. On the other hand, the individualism view would require I do not let Kay apply for the position because I need Kay for two main reasons. 1. Kay is a high performer, which helps me look good to my management and 2. I cannot replace anyone who leaves for quite some time due to the budget cuts, which will put additional stress on the my team and myself if she leaves the team.
Step 2: Get the facts: 1. Kay knows my situation that I cannot replace her and she is the top performer within my team. 2. By asking my permission to submit an application for the new position in a different division of the company, tells me she wants to stay with the company but is looking for advancement and more challenging work.
Step 3: Identify your options: Option 1: I can tell her no with an explanation of how much she is needed in my team. Option 2: I can give her permission to apply for the position. Option 3: I can give her permission and request the hiring manager not to consider her due to my team’s needs. Option 4: I could tell the hiring manager about the boss’s friend’s son, to make sure the son gets extra consideration which should keep Kay from being hired for the new position.
Step 4: Test each option: Is it legal? Is it right? Is it beneficial?: Option 1 is legal and beneficial but I do not believe it is right because Kay has worked hard to have the qualification required for the new position and she is a high performer. Option 2 is legal, right and beneficial. Kay is a high performer and has the potential to rise within the company which could help me later because she would appreciate me letting her apply for the position. Option 3 is not legal or right but is beneficial. The benefit is it allows Kay to go through the application process and she will think I am a good manager so when she does not receive the position she will stay with my team. Option 4 is not legal or right but could be beneficial. The possible benefit is Kay would not receive the position and stay with the team.
Step 5: Decide which option to follow: I chose option 2, to give her permission to apply for the position. I know from personal experience, when a manager holds an employee back for their own team’s benefit. it can back fire on the manager. The employee usually will leave the company so the manager is still short an employee and the company did not retain a good employee. It is better to take the high road and help people progress and not hold them back.
Step 6: Double-check your decision by...
