How Workplace Ethics Decisions Could Be Taken to Bring Sanity into a Workplace - Assignment Example

1 Workplace Ethical: Case Studies The following five case studies demonstrate how workplace ethics decisions /actions could be taken to bring sanity into a workplace where the workers have abused their rights and place their personal needs ahead of the business requirements. Case Study 1: Marwa is an administrative assistant in the Human Resources Department. Her good friend Manhal, is applying for a job with the company and Marwa has agreed to serve as a reference. Manhal approaches her for advice on preparing for the interview. Marwa says she can get a copy of the actual interview questions and considers making a copy of the list so her friend Manhal can best prepare for the interview. Ethical Decisions for Case Study 1 1. The ethical issue or problem in the case study above is that of exposing the contents of an interview meant for all potential employees of Bellwood Computer Network. 2. It is the rules at Bellwood Computer Network that nepotism, self-serving attitude and unethical behavior should be frowned at by the employees (Johnson, 2007). 3. My decision against this act of workplace impropriety will affect Marwa, our administrative assistant, and he may have to be punished or redeployed to a section of the company that has no direct link to the Company’s interview for new employees (Johnson, 2007). 2 4. These three alternative actions may be employed to address the leak of the Company’s interview: (a) redeploy all the members of the administrative department—this will affect all the employees in this department (this is seriously the worse action). (b) redeploy only the administrative assistants that have knowledge of Marwa’s action but refused to report to the company. (c) the best alternative is to change the entire contents of the interview and request for Marwa to foot the bill (Johnson, 3007). 5. Each affected person in the action 4 above may want the Company to critically investigate the matter to ascertain who was actually wrong or right, as this is the best way to address employees’ grievances (Johnson, 2007). 6. Therefore, having duly investigated this incident, Marwa will be suspended from the Company for two weeks without pay, and he would be redeployed from the administration department because of his poor judgment in revealing the contents of the Company’s interview to his friend (Johnson, 2007). Case study 2: Emily works in Quality Control and each year several computers are found to be serviceable but not of selling quality. Her supervisor decides that these computers should go to a good cause, for example: the local elementary schools. No specific records are kept other than what Emily produces herself. Emily needs a computer for her son who is studying at college. The supervisor provides 12 such computer systems to Emily as excess to requirements, Emily 3 delivers 11 to schools but decides to keep 1 computer for her son – this she says will be given to a school at a later date when her son no longer needs the computer. Ethical Decisions for Case Study 2 1. The ethical issue/problem here is that of self-aggrandizement or putting self-interest over the Company’s interest (Johnson, 2007). 2. Emily understands that: (i) the computers were meant for the schools, not for any member of her family; (ii) the Company wants its rule or policy respected by all the employees; (iii) diverting Company’s products to personal use is against the policy of the Company (Johnson, 2007). 3. Emily will be mainly affected by any ethical decision made on this issue because she personal decided to flout the Company’s rule without making any recourse to her superiors at work. 4. These three alternative actions to address this situation may be: (i) to fire Emily for her bad judgment; (ii) to query her superiors in the Company for not following up the distribution of the computers to the schools; (iii) to request that other employers in Emily’s department be served letters of warning for not discouraging her from turning the Company’s property into hers (Johnson, 2007). 5. It is naturally that each person affected by action 4 will seek for fair hearing whereby they could defend their own actions in relation to the matter under consideration (Johnson, 2007). 4 6. Emily will be fired for her selfish decision to impound the Company’s property and use it to satisfy her selfish need. This action contravenes the Company’s procedure, which requires that employees should strictly follow the Company rule when it comes to the use of the Company’s property. Her action reveals that she has shown absolute disrespect to the Company, and her action should be met with appropriate punishment, which is expulsion from the company and without any severance payment (Johnson, 2007). Case study 3: Marvin is the secretary in the Facilities Management Department. He has just received a new computer and needs time to get familiar with it. The supervisor has a strict policy about using computers for business purposes only. One easy way to do this, he thinks, is to use the computer for personal use until he gets more confident. He creates time from his work of 30 minutes each day after the Supervisor goes home, Marvin then does personal work on his new computer without the Supervisor’s knowledge. Ethical decisions for Case Study 3 1. The workplace ethical issue/problem here is robbing the Company’s of valuable time by using the time for personal gratification (Johnson, 2007). 2. Marvin errs in the following ways: (i) by using the Company’s precious time for his own self-development; (ii) by not requesting for permission to do so; (iii) by using the Company’s property (computer) to achieve a personal goal (Johnson, 2007). 5 3. The first person to be affected by my decision will be Marvin; however, if other employees are found to have helped his action to disregard the Company’s rules. 4. These three alternative actions may be taken to deal with the offenders in this issues; (i) Marvin may be asked to spend extra time at work to make up for the loss time due to his selfish decision to utilize the Company’s time for personal goal; (ii) other employees who knew about this development and refuse to complain to the Company management will be given warning letters; (iii) the employee who was teaching Marvin how to use to the computer would be forced to apologize officially to the Company (Johnson, 2007). 5. Those affected by the decision 4 may want to seek the Company for fair and impartial hearing to plead their cases; their demands will be accepted (Johnson, 2007). 6. Marvin will be forced to pay back the loss hours by working overtime at the company; and he would also be sent on training to learn time management and being respectful to the Company’s values and rules. The other employees may be absolved of their punishment if they are able to prove that they are completely ignorant of such an action by Marvin. They may be asked to keep a watchful eye on Marvin and his actions in their department tp make sure he does not go ahead flouting the Company’s rule (Johnson, 2007). 6 Case Study 4: Richard and Ahmed are talking in the hallway about the employee benefits program. Ahmed, who has had some recent financial trouble, explains to Richard how the benefits program has a loophole that could allow someone to receive extra financial help, and, he is desperate for financial assistance to help pay health care costs for his mother. Mansour, a fellow worker, overhears the conversation. Later, Mansour is told by his supervisor that the company benefits program is in trouble and short of funds, he asks Mansour for any suggestions he might have to save money on the benefits program. Ethical decisions for case study 4 1. The ethical issue/problem here is about knowing a setback or loophole in the Company’s benefits program and not informing the management about how to rectify it to save the Company’s funds (Johnson, 2007). 2. The following facts contribute to the decision that the actions perpetrated by Richard, Ahmed and Mansour are unethical and unproductive to salvage the Company from plunging into financial mess: (i) having knowledge of the financial loophole but desisting from report such to the Company’s management, probably for personal gain; (ii) actively discussing the way to profit from the loophole (Richard and Ahmed); overhearing the discussion about the loophole, but refusing to communicate the discovery to the Company management (Mansour). 7 3. Those that will be affected by my ethical decisions would be Richard, Ahmed and Mansour who are at the center of this issue. Richard and Ahmed may be suspended from work for a week, while Mansour get a pay cut (Johnson, 2007). 4. These three alternative actions may be considered against the offenders in this ethical issue; (i) both Richard and Ahmed may be asked to apologize and receive a pay cut for hiding a problem about the Company’s financial benefits program; (ii) Mansour may receive just a warning; (iii) other employees who knowledge of this loophole but refused to voice out may also receive the punishment of pay cut (Johnson, 2007). 5. Each affected person may request for fair hearing on the issue and an opportunity to defend themselves (Johnson, 2007). 6. Both Richard and Ahmed will be punished by suspending for a week without pay, and Mansour will receive a pay cut for month. These kinds of punishment are meant to instill sense of stewardship into them (Johnson, 2007). Case study 5: Jennie was recently hired to work as a receptionist. As receptionist, she is responsible for making copies for management meetings. Her son, Jason, comes in and needs some copies for a school project. He brought his own paper and needs 300 copies for his class. If he doesn't get the copies, he might fail the project. The company copier does not require a security key nor do they keep track of copies made, Jennie decides to use the copier for her son as a priority over company business. 8 Ethical decisions for case study 5 1. The ethical issue/problem here is that of self-aggrandizement or putting self-interest over the Company’s interest (Johnson, 2007). 2. Jennie understands that: (i) the copiers were meant for the management meetings, not for any member of her family; (ii) the Company wants its rule or policy respected by all the employees; (iii) using the Company’s copy sheets for personal use is against the policy of the Company (Johnson, 2007). 3. Jennie will be mainly affected by any ethical decision made on this issue because she personal decided to flout the Company’s rule without making any recourse to her superiors at work. 4. These three alternative actions to address this situation may be: (i) to reprimand Jennie for her bad judgment; (ii) to query her superiors in the Company for not monitoring her action as she used the Company’s copying materials for her son; (iii) to request that other employers in Jennie’s department be served letters of warning for not discouraging her from using the Company’s materials for her son (Johnson, 2007). 5. It is naturally that each person affected by action 4 will seek for fair hearing whereby they could defend their own actions in relation to the matter under consideration (Johnson, 2007). 9 6. Jennie will be reprimanded for her selfish decision to use the Company’s copy materials in satisfying her son’s need. This action contravenes the Company’s procedure, which requires that employees should strictly follow the Company rule when it comes to the use of the Company’s property. Her action reveals that she has shown absolute disrespect to the Company, and her action should be met with appropriate punishment, which is being reprimanded and asked to pay for the copy materials used (Johnson, 2007). References Johnson, C.E. (2007). Ethics in the workplace: tools and tactics for organizational transformation, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Read More