Fair Isn't Fair - Southmont State University - Assignment Example

Management Ethics at Southmont State University Abstract This paper is a strategic analysis of a case involving Laura Adams, an employee at Southmont State University. The first part of this analysis recaps and analyses the relevant facts surrounding the case. The second part of the analysis states the root problem and the problem components. The third part states the alternative courses of action and these alternatives are evaluated in the fourth part. The fifth, sixth and seventh parts discuss the alternative chosen, the implementation plan and the alternative choice respectively. Step 1: Recap and analysis of the relevant facts Six people who included Laura Adams, Dean Bob Frederick, Agnes Johnson, Alex Farrell, Lawrence Sheffield and Jerry Forest were involved in the case. Dean Fredric is Laura’s boss who gave her unwritten permission to attend classes during working hours. Laura is Dean Frederick’s administrative secretary. Agnes is the Benefits Manager in the Personnel Department who conducted an audit on staff enrolment in classes. Alex is the Director of Personnel who was in charge of reviewing Laura’s violation of University policy so that appropriate action would be taken against her. Lawrence is the Vice President for Finance who was in charge of making recommendations for action. Jerry is Dean Frederick’s superior, as he is the Academic Vice President. Jerry is in charge of reprimanding Laura. The University has established a policy that regulated the attendance of staff members in courses offered at the University. One of the rules states that employees must not attend classes during working hours. In order for her to graduate in August, Laura enrolled in a course that was only offered during working hours. Another rule was violated when Laura sought and was given permission to attend class by Dean Frederick instead of seeking approval from the University President or the Vice President of Finance. The Personnel Department conducted a routine audit on staff enrollment to University courses and Laura was found to have violated University policy. Dean Frederick took responsibility for not following University policy when he approved Laura’s request to attend the International Marketing class. This marketing class took place during working hours from 10:50am to 12:30 pm. The administration found that Laura had violated University policy, but since she was a good employee, she would not be terminated. Her reprimanding was in the form of a 150 percent charge on lost time, repayment of 165 dollars to the staff scholarship program and receiving a reprimanding letter from the Academic Vice President. Laura felt that she was reprimanded harshly and threatened that she would take the University to court on discrimination charges. Laura was aware that minority workers at the University were allowed to attend classes during working hours, and she felt she should be warranted the same right as the minorities. Dean Frederick felt obligated to taking some of the blame because he had approved Laura’s enrollment in the marketing class. Step 2 and 3: The root problem and the problem components Dean Frederick is responsible for Laura’s situation, because he thought it was fine for her to take the class and ignored the consequences of his decision. Because Dean Frederick underestimated his decision to ignore University policy, Laura’s case got out of hand. First, Laura was upset because she was being punished despite Dean Frederick supporting her decision. Secondly, Dean Frederick could not challenge his boss and the powerful campus administrator because he would need them when negotiating the upcoming budgetary allocations. Thirdly, Laura’s case is now a federal case. The courts themselves have trouble settling cases involving the preferential selection involved in affirmative action programs (Gennard & Judge, 2005, pp. 189-217). Step 4: Alternatives generated Dean Frederick should request the Vice President or the President of the University to exempt Laura. Laura should take responsibility for not following proper procedure. The University needs to update its policy for workers taking courses at the University. Step 5: Evaluation of alternatives Because Dean Frederick is partly responsible for Laura’s case, he should support her all the way (Petrick & Quinn, 1997, pp. 346-393). He can do this by approaching either the President or the Vice President of the University and asking them to exempt Laura. Dean Frederick should follow the University policies in doing this to avoid complicating Laura’s case. Dean Frederick should take some of the blame and should receive some reprimanding as well. Dean Frederick did not take time to think about his decision to approve Laura’s classes. If Dean Frederick had not approved Laura’s decision to take classes during working hours, them she would not have done it. In taking some of the blame, Dean Frederick will be giving Laura a break that she deserves. Laura knew she was violating University policy when she asked for approval from the Dean instead of the President or Vice President of the University. Laura should therefore stop being upset and accept the reprimand as a consequence of her bad decision. The higher education program approved the Black Staff Scholarship Program, and Laura should not consider taking classes under this program. The goal of such a scholarship program to provide equal protection and application of the law to faculty and staff, and the issue of race and discrimination is irrelevant. The University should also revise its policies to allow for workers such as Laura to attend classes during working hours. This is especially important if the worker needs to graduate in six or so months. Step 6: Alternative chosen The University’s policy should be modified in Laura’s case because she had reasonable explanations as why she had to go to class during working hours. First, Laura did ask for permission from her boss and Dean Frederick did approve her attending the classes. Secondly, Laura did not take her lunch breaks but took that one hour break as a chance to do extra work. At the end of the day, Laura also stayed at work longer and extended her shift. Thirdly, the marketing course that Laura needed for her degree was only available during working hours. Fourth, Laura only needed two courses to complete the requirements for her degree. These courses were being taught that summer, but if she failed to attend this class, she would have had to wait till fall. Lastly, Laura had no problem adhering to the University policy that stated that she would be charged a time of 150 percent against her annual leave. Step 7: Implementation Plan It should be made easier for the employees that have exceptions as stated in the University policy to get opportunities to attend the classes during working hours. This exception should be valid only if the worker has six or fewer credits lefts for them to graduate, and the course is only available during working hours. Step 8: Alternative choice In the event that the University chooses not to modify its policy for Laura’s case, the next ethical alternative that can be taken is Dean Frederick following the proper University procedure in approaching the President and Vice President of the University (Molesworth et al., 2003, pp. 112-147). Dean Frederick should mention that Laura’s seeking and being granted permission by her boss should be taken into consideration before she is reprimanded. Although she did not follow the correct chain of command, Laura sought approval from her superior before attending the classes. Laura should not be reprimanded as harshly as she would have been if she had not taken any measures whatsoever in seeking approval. Conclusion and recommendations The University’s policies are useful guidelines for the administration and employees. These policies, however, lack to represent some employees as has been discussed in this paper. It is crucial for modifications to be done on the University policies to ensure that future discrepancies do not arise. Full time employees should be offered full financial support (Beam & McFadden, 2004, pp. 616-709). To qualify for this the employees must give prove of their good performance and they must show their dedication to adhering University policies. References Petrick, J. & Quinn, F. (1997). Management ethics: Integrity at work. SAGE. Molesworth, A. et al. (2003). Work ethic. Penn State Press. Beam, T. & McFadden, J. (2004). Employee Benefits. 7th ed. Dearborn Trade Publishing. Gennard, J. & Judge, G. (2005). Employee relations. 4th ed. CIPD Publishing. Read More