Ethical Decisions in Leadership - Case Study Example

Ethical Decisions in Leadership Decision making at the top level of an organization is always difficult especially when deciding about promotions. Even for a single higher position, there would be more than one eligible candidate. Logics and ethics are often influence the decision making process of promotions. However, which should be given more preference; logics or ethics, is a big question the top management should address while taking such decisions. Some of the candidates who are seeking promotions may have more experience while the others may have more abilities. Some of them may have sound financial backgrounds while others may not have sound financial abilities. In the given case study, Karen Hathaway has to select one person from the list of three to a higher position. All the three persons in consideration have advantages and disadvantages which made Karen’s task extremely difficult. Carmen was an African American widow of age 34 who has one child. She was an average performer and had eight years experience in the industry, out of which four years was with the company. Her child has some medical problems and she was badly in need of more money. Ralph one among the other two competing for the higher position was a white, aged 57 and had three children. Ralph has been with the company for twenty years and in the industry for thirty. He has always been a steady performer, with mostly average ratings. He has denied promotion earlier because of his reluctance to relocate. However, he had no such problems at present and was ready to relocate. Yingzi was the third candidate under consideration. She was an Asian, single, aged 27 and had only three years experience in the company. Even though she was the junior among the three, she had outstanding track records and management skills. It is evident from the three cases mentioned above that Yingzi had better performance record than the other two even though she was a junior in the company and had less experience than the others. Her track records show that she was ready to go up to any extent if she faces any employment discrimination. Ralph on the other hand was the most experienced person in the company and it is unethical to deny him the promotion since he is approaching his retirement. Carmen was the best friend of Karen and she was badly in need of a promotion because of her poor financial abilities and the necessity of huge money to treat her only child. In short, the problem in this case study is; what should be given more weightage while deciding promotion; performance merit or ethical principles? If Carmen failed to get promotion, employees may consider it as an example of racial discrimination sine she was an African American widower. Karen may face the charges of prejudice and bias if she promotes Carmen since Carmen was one of the better friends of Karen. Ralph’s son was getting married to the vice president’s daughter which means the influence of ralph in the company is going to be increased. Yingzi on the other hand is engaged to the son of one of the upper management individual. Carmen was also supported by some of the upper managers. In short, all the three candidates had great support from different top managers in the company. Since all the three candidates have their own claims, advantages and disadvantages, it is better to analyze the cases and claims one by one. Karen has three choices; 1) consider the influence of the candidates in the organization 2) consider the merits of the candidates 3) consider the ethical claims of the candidates. The major strength of Yingzi is her performance whereas that of Ralph was his experience. Carmen on the other hand had the strength of moral support and better relations with Karen. At the same time Carmen’s better relations with Karen may become a threat to her promotion scopes if Karen decides to boost her image in the organization. All the three candidates had their influence in the organization. Ralph and Yingzi may have better influence than Carmen since they are going to strengthen their relationships with the top management through some marriages. In other words, Ralph and Yingzi had the strength of better influence in the organization than Carmen. It is evident from the case study that Carmen has difficulties in managing her staff. In other words, her management skills are not so good. On the other hand Yingzi had outstanding management skills and her performance records were superior to that of Ralph’s and Carmen’s. Ralph on the other hand maintained an average performance record over his long stay in the company. On the basis of experience and long association with the company, Ralph outclassed the other two decisively. The thirty years of industry experience is too much when we consider the claims of Carmen (8 years) and Yingzi (3 years). Both Ralph and Yingzi had not much financial problems compared to Carmen. The family atmosphere of Carmen was pathetic compared to that of Ralph and Yingzi which makes her claim more ethical rather than logical. After analysing the claims of Carmen, Yingzi and Ralph, I strongly believe that Karen should promote Ralph because of his superior experience in the organization. It is unethical to deny the promotion opportunity to such a long serving employee in an organization. It should be note that Ralph maintained a steady performance record in the organization and he was not considered earlier for promotions not because of his demerits, but because of his reluctance in relocating. At present he is ready to relocate which means his claims for promotion cannot be neglected under any circumstances. The other two candidates have more time ahead whereas Ralph is approaching his retirement. Under such circumstances it is illogical and unethical to neglect the claims of Ralph. It is a fact that Yingzi has better management and performance record. However, she has only three years experience and it is difficult to assess a person based on the performances of such a short period. It should be noted that most of the employees perform well during the initial periods of their services because of their better energy, enthusiasm and career awareness. It is not necessary that Yingzi may maintain same momentum for longer periods. Moreover, most of the employees always like to be managed by well experienced and matured persons. Promoting an employee of three years experience may develop dissatisfaction among the rest of the employees. Rest of the employees may develop a feeling that their career prospects may also be affected once the organization decides to promote juniors ahead of the experienced seniors. The best staff want to work for truly responsible and ethical employers. Failing to be a good employer means good staff leave, and reduces the likelihood of attracting good new-starters. This pushes up costs and undermines performance and efficiency. Aside from this, good organizations simply can't function without good people (Ethical leadership, decision-making, and organizations, 2010) It is difficult for an organization to bring personal matters into professional matters. Even though Carmen was in need of money, an organization cannot consider such things while deciding promotions. As per Kantian ethical theory the purpose of morality is not to make others happy, but to do the right thing just for the sake of doing (Maccarelli, 2006). “Kant points out that a good will must be good in itself and not in virtue of its relationship to other things” (Johnson, 2008). In other words, Kantian ethics argues against prejudices and biases while taking moral decisions. It is a fact that Carmen is a widow having a diseased child. However, the organization can consider helping financially by allotting certain loans or grants. Professional merits should be the criteria while deciding promotions rather than ethical considerations. Utilitarian always assess an activity based on the utility of it. Utilitarian believe that the moral worth of an action is determined by the utility of the action. Kay (1997) has pointed out that “Utilitarian theory defines morality in terms of the maximization of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a decision or action” (Kay, 1997). In other words, while taking decisions about promotion, Karen should consider the utility of her decision to the organization rather than to the individual. Karen should consider the long term interest of the organization while taking decisions about the promotion. In other words, she should consider the term “right perspectives” while taking promotion decisions. Crane & Matten, (2010) have pointed out that “rights perspective” means protecting basic inalienable rights in all actions” (Crane & Matten, 2010, p.1). Karen should never bother about the influence or other claims of the candidates. She should consider only the merits while taking decisions. Ralph definitely have the edge over others when we consider the principles of Kantian ethics and utilitarian ethics. In short, I would strongly recommend Ralph for the higher post after analyzing all the dimensions of the problems presented in the case study. References 1. Crane & Matten, (2010). Business ethics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 5, Oxford University Press, 2010 2. Ethical leadership, decision-making, and organizations, (2010). Retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com/ethical_management_leadership.htm 3. Johnson, R. (2008) Kant's Moral Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ 4. Kay, C. (1997), Notes on utilitarianism, Retrieved from http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/util.htm 5. Maccarelli, S. (2006). The Ethical Theory of Kantianism.. Retrieved from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/20668/the_ethical_theory_of_kantianism.html?cat=9 Read More