Business Ethics Case Study: Ethical Dilemma Fictional Case

Business Ethicscase Study 5an Ethical Dilemma Fictional Case By Ferrel

Business Ethics case Study 5 an Ethical Dilemma Fictional Case By Ferrel

Business Ethics Case Study 5 An Ethical Dilemma Fictional Case by Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, 10th Edition. p182 When Jim began working in the human resources department at KR Electronics, he was impressed with the number of advancement opportunities the job offered. His first task was to monitor reports that came in from employees through the company's ethics hotline. It was a simple job but one Jim felt would lead him to a higher position in the HR department. He spent two days learning about the company's ethical policies and values, such as the importance of integrity and confidentiality.

Jim felt reassured he chose a great company in which to start a career. KR Electronics was a competitive company, and every six years employees were evaluated for performance. While the highest performers received substantial bonuses, the lowest 15 percent were consistently fired. This didn't bother Jim too much. He knew many other well-known companies had a similar system in place.

What bothered Jim was the way the supervisors treated employees who did not perform highly. Several employees approached Jim and told him of an abusive manager who often yelled at employees in front of other co-workers. Jim heard reports that the supervisor would make comments such as "I can't wait till the year is up and I can tell you to get lost. It'll be nice to actually get someone in this job with half a brain." When Jim approached David, the human resources manager of his department, about what he heard, David shrugged off Jim's concerns. "You've got to understand, Jim," David explained. "We operate in a highly competitive field. Employees have to work quickly and efficiently in order to maintain our business. This often requires supervisors to get tough. Besides, this supervisor's unit is one of our highest performers. Apparently, whatever he's doing is working." This remark made Jim feel uncomfortable, but he did not want to argue with his boss about it.

One day Jim got a call from a woman in the company's sales department. She informed him that many of the firm's salespeople made exaggerated claims about the quality of their electronics. He also learned salespeople were making guarantees about products that were not true, such as how long the product would last. "The salespeople are given substantial bonuses for exceeding their quotas, so many promise whatever it takes to increase their sales," the woman explained. Although it was not required to provide a name when reporting, the person talking to Jim gave her name as Sarah Jones.

She asked Jim to make sure her sales manager Rick Martin did not find out she called the hotline. Jim gave the report to his supervisor for further investigation. Two weeks later Jim heard that Sarah Jones had been fired for poor performance. He approached David to ask him about the situation and was horrified to find out the sales manager of Sarah's division had been told about her report. "But David, this is a violation of our confidentiality code! I promised Sarah we would keep her name anonymous when investigating this matter. What if Rick fired her out of retaliation?" Jim asked. David looked at Jim in exasperation. "Jim, you are making too big of a deal out of this. Nobody forced Sarah to give her name to us over the hotline. And trust me, Rick's a good man. He wouldn't fire someone simply to get back at them for reporting. It seems to me that these reports didn't have credibility, anyway. It's likely that Sarah made up these allegations to hide her poor performance." Jim left David's office upset. Even if Sarah was a poor performer, he did not feel that it was right that her sales manager was told about her report when she expressly requested otherwise.

As he went back to his desk, he remembered hearing that the sales manager and David were good friends and often went out together for lunch.

Paper For Above instruction

The case study presented involves a complex ethical dilemma within a corporate environment, highlighting conflicts between organizational policies, cultural practices, and individual moral judgments. Jim, a new HR employee at KR Electronics, faces challenges when confronting issues of employee mistreatment, misuse of confidential information, and managerial retaliation, all of which pit organizational norms against ethical principles.

The company's organizational culture appears to prioritize performance and competition, fostering an environment where high productivity is rewarded with bonuses, yet this emphasis seems to overshadow the importance of ethical conduct and employee welfare. The practice of firing the lowest-performing 15 percent periodically suggests a culture driven primarily by results, where fear of job loss may be pervasive among employees. This focus can potentially lead to unethical behaviors, such as mistreatment of employees or retaliation against whistleblowers, to maintain performance metrics.

Furthermore, the hierarchical attitude displayed by supervisors, particularly the abusive conduct reported by employees, indicates a culture that tolerates or ignores unethical behaviors if they contribute to high performance. Jim's inquiry about the supervisor's conduct is dismissed by his superior, David, who rationalizes the abuse as necessary for competitiveness. This acceptance of unethical treatment conflicts with the fundamental ethical policies promoting integrity and respect within the organization.

The core ethical conflict intensifies around confidentiality and retaliation issues. Jim's investigation into Sarah Jones's report reveals a serious breach of confidentiality and fairness. Sarah's concern about retaliation is dismissed when her report's credibility is questioned, and her subsequent termination highlights the organization's problematic stance on whistleblowing. If retaliation occurred, it violates the principles of justice and protections afforded to whistleblowers, undermining the ethical integrity of the organization.

Jim's dilemma revolves around whether to accept the organizational culture's apparent disregard for ethical standards or to challenge it based on moral principles. Legally, the organization has obligations to protect whistleblowers and maintain confidentiality; ethically, Jim is compelled to act in accordance with principles of honesty, fairness, and respect for employee rights.

Options available to Jim include reporting the misconduct to higher authorities or external agencies, advocating for the protection of whistleblowers, and urging organizational change to prioritize ethical standards over mere performance metrics. However, doing so might jeopardize his job, especially considering the personal connections between the HR director and the sales manager. His decision must balance the risks against his moral duty to promote a fair and ethical workplace.

Regarding Sarah Jones, if her firing was indeed retaliatory, she has grounds for legal action under whistleblower protection laws. Ethically, the organization must ensure anonymity and protection for employees reporting misconduct. Jim could assist in whistleblower processes, encouraging the company to adopt transparent investigation procedures and ethical reporting policies.

In terms of next steps, Jim should document all relevant reports, conversations, and decisions related to the incidents. He could consider reporting the ethical violations to higher authorities in the company or external oversight bodies. Advocacy for establishing strict confidentiality and anti-retaliation policies would help foster an ethical organizational culture. Additionally, Jim might approach ethics committees or boards to seek guidance or advocate for cultural changes conducive to ethical behavior.

In conclusion, this case underscores the tension between organizational performance driven by competition and the ethical obligations to treat employees fairly, maintain confidentiality, and protect whistleblowers. Jim's role as an HR professional puts him at the crossroads of these conflicting priorities, emphasizing the importance of adhering to ethical principles to promote integrity, fairness, and respect in the workplace.

References

• Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2021). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices. HarperOne.
• Powell, M. (2014). Managing Ethical Organizations. Springer.
• Union of Concerned Scientists. (2017). Workplace whistleblowing: Protecting employment rights. UCS Publications.
• Shelby, L. (2019). Ethics in Human Resource Management. Routledge.
• Vinten, G. (2014). Ethics in the workplace: Ethical challenges and how to deal with them. Routledge.
• Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right. Wiley.
• Johnson, C. E. (2020). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership. Sage Publications.
• Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
• Swiss, N., & Cohen, J. (2018). Ethical leadership and employee whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 639-654.