Ethical decisions in leadership - Essay Example

?Ethical Decisions in Leadership Case Study An Ethical Dilemma Problem In the given case, Karen Hathaway is confused as to who is to be selected for promotion from three potential candidates. While one is a male with excellent track record and long years of service in the company, one is an African-American divorcee woman who too possesses considerably high energy levels. The third one is an Asian woman with dynamic management efficacies. The issue to be addressed here is to decide who is to be selected when there are three equally important candidates and out of them, two are minority women who deserve affirmative action (Garrett, 2009). In addition, all three have almost equal levels of support from top-management. Input At this juncture, it is necessary to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each of these candidates. First of all, Carmen is considered. Carmen is an African-American woman of 34. She is a divorcee and has a child. She has four years of experience in the company and eight years experience in the industry. However, she has below average educational record and an average work performance as a manager. She has certain problems in managing her staff, but as her child has medical problems, promotion will be helpful for her as there will be higher salary. Karen Hathaway is close to her, and is well aware of her financial needs. In addition, the public relations of the company feel that promoting Carmen would be a good idea. The second person is Ralph- a white married man of 57 having three children. He has excellent educational record and has long years of work experience in the company. He worked 20 years for the company and was consistent in his performance all these years. Though he possesses below average energy levels, many top performers of the company took birth under him. In addition, as he is nearing retirement, many people in the company believe that he deserves the promotion. The third person is Yingzi. She is an Asian woman of 27 and is single. She has excellent academic records. She has been with the company for three years and over this period, she has become famous for hard work and special management features. She has been dynamic throughout her career and even sued her previous employer. In addition, she has gained some criticism from the sales people working under her for her particular management style though she managed to reach record sales. However, she too receives support from top management people as she is engaged to an upper management individual’s son. The first issue to be addressed here is that of affirmative action. One is an African-American divorcee, and even the public relations of the company think that this would certainly give a boost to the public image of the company. In addition, Kant’s theory of categorical imperative (n.d.) calls for specialized attention towards females and minorities. In addition, it is generally alleged that females and minorities always face a glass ceiling when it comes to promotion to top management. However, in the field of management, the general notion is that it is necessary to give equal opportunity to candidates when considering for promotion. No factor including race or ethnicity should influence the decision making other than factors like ability and willingness to perform work. It is claimed that including other factors like gender and ethnicity will lead to the development of an unhealthy workplace. In addition, regarding affirmative action (as suggested in ‘Manager’s Guide to Understanding Affirmative Action’, 1996), the rule is that affirmative action does not mean that preference should be given based on a person’s minority or female status. In addition, it is pointed out that affirmative action does not require selecting an unqualified person for a position. Thus, in this particular case, it becomes evident that the two female managers do not need to be given special priority as far as their educational qualification, experience, performance, and skill are different. In addition, it is evident that except for her high energy levels and her status as an African-American woman, Carmen does not have any other positive factor that makes her eligible for promotion. It is pointed out that as a manger, she has problem managing her staff, and her performance on job is mediocre. At this stage, it is evident that considering her for promotion will sabotage the interests of the company. The only benefit is the improvement in the public image of the company as the public relations of the company opine. In addition, this will help Carmen meet her financial needs. However, personal problems and hardships should never interfere with the selection process. The second candidate Yingzi is an Asian woman. She is dynamic and hardworking, but many people under her do not like working under her because of her management style. However, she is able to effect drastic changes and dramatic improvements. But, she has been with the company only for three years, and she has joined this company leaving another company against which she had legal proceedings. Considering the fluctuating nature, it seems that there is the need for observation on her management style for some more time before giving her more important roles. However, it is clear that given ample opportunities, she has the potential to become a good leader in future. The third candidate is Ralph, a white male of 57 who got 20 years of experience in the company. Throughout the period, he has shown average performance and has been termed sincere and loyal by others in the company. Many people under him set sales records, and he has no problem dealing with the staff under him. Moreover, it becomes evident that he has neared retirement, and man y people believe that he deserves this promotion. It is evident that selecting Ralph will not create a controversy as many employees expect it. In addition, this will give Yingzi more time to get used to the managerial post she is not so comfortable with. In fact, there are three factors to be considered in ethical conflicts. According to Shaw (p.77), they are obligation, ideals, and effects. In addition, it is generally observed that when two moral obligations conflict, it is important to select the stronger one. In this particular case, Carmen is in need for money, but, Ralph has been loyal to the company for long and deserves the promotion. When Carmen has problem handling staff, Ralph has proved his ability in his long career record. In addition, promoting Carmen may negatively affect the entire company as her abilities do not seem up to the mark. In addition, when effects are considered, the maxim is to select the one the effect of which is maximum good and least harm. Moreover, according to Utilitarianism, (as cited by Kay, 1997), an action can be considered ethical if it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. Furthermore, according to Ferrell, Fraedrich, and L Ferrell (2009, p. 44), the ultimate responsibility for ensuring ethics in a firm is with the board of directors. So, it is wise to give a detailed account of the situation that makes it an ethical decision to select Ralph for promotion to the top management. Solutions 1) The first solution is to select Ralph for promotion, and then conduct a ‘Public Scrutiny Test’ to ensure that Karen can defend her decision in front of the management and in public. Possible steps can be taken to ensure financial assistance to Carmen and more training and support to Yingzi. 2) The second solution is to conduct an ‘Authority Test’ among the top management personnel on the three candidates before reaching a final decision as all the three candidates have support from upper-management personnel. Credentials of all three can be explained, and then majority opinion can be followed. The SWOT analysis of the first solution is as follows Strengths a) Majority of the staffs believe that Ralph deserves the position, and hence, there is no possibility of conflict. b) Employees do not face any problem working under Ralph, ensuring smooth functioning of the company. c) Public Scrutiny Test ensures that Karen is able to answer the queries of top management effectively. d) What Carmen requires is not promotion but financial assistance. e) Yingzi can be given further guidance and assistance to become a good manager. Weaknesses a) Ralph possesses relatively low energy levels. b) Ralph is to retire in the near future. c) Affirmative action fails. Opportunities a) By the time Ralph retires, Yingzi can be trained by the human resource management team to become a perfect candidate for promotion. b) Carmen can be given assistance to overcome her problems; financial and personal without affecting the performance of the company. Threats a) Decision will not be loved by the public relations of the company. b) There is possibility of discontent from the top management people who support the other two. SWOT analysis of the second solution The second solution is to have an ‘Authority Test’ among the top management before reaching a final decision. Strengths a) It will provide an idea about the opinion of the upper management of the company. b) It helps avoid the wrath of various upper management personnel. Weakness a) If Ralph is not selected, managerial ethics is not achieved. b) Selection of Yingzi or Carmen will be disliked by some staff under them. c) As Yingzi and Carmen are less skilled and less experienced, their selection will affect the total performance of the company. Opportunity a) It will boost the image of the company as females and minorities are selected. Threat a) Many employees with skill many feel insecure in the company as quality and loyalty are ignored for gender and ethnicity. Choice It becomes evident that the best option is to select Ralph with proper preparation to face the upper management question through Public Scrutiny Test. Operation 1) Identify the possible criticism from various upper management personnel and find proper points to answer them. 2) Communicate the situation to the top management personnel. 2) Identify ways to ensure financial assistance to Carmen if possible. 3) Contact HR to ensure proper observation and development of Yingzi. 4) Declare Ralph as the candidate for promotion. References Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J & Ferrell, L. (2009). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. US: Cengage Learning. Garrett, J. (April 23, 2004). ‘Discrimination and affirmative action’. Retrieved from http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/discaffi.htm Kant and the Categorical Imperative. Retrieved from http://members.fortunecity.com/rsrevision/kantandthecatimp.htm Kay, C. D. (Jan 20, 1997). Notes on Utilitarianism. Retrieved fromhttp://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/util.htm Manager’s Guide to Understanding Affirmative Action. (June 1996). United States Postal Service. Publication 18, 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/manuals/PUB18.PDF Shaw, W. H. (2010). Business ethics: A textbook with cases. Boston MA, US: Cengage Learning. Read More