Ethics Case: Decision Making Regarding Employee Behavior Aft

Ethics Case: Decision Making Regarding Employee Behavior After a Ski Trip

You, your spouse, and your two young children have recently moved to Texas and you are now the Human Resource Manager of an apple juice plant called Beech-Nut. Your first few months on the job have confirmed that you made a great choice in joining Beechnut. Your relationships with peers, employees, and the president, Thomas Rex Gibbs, have been positive. Gibbs, known as “T-Rex,” has a dominant personality and values surrounding talent, performance, and company reputation. Under his leadership, the company has thrived, becoming the second-largest maker of baby foods in the country, with a focus on core values such as People, Portfolio, Planet, and Profit. The company’s reputation relies heavily on media coverage and positive public relations.

Recently, your organization organized a social event—a ski trip involving about 15 employees, including some from your HR department. The employees had a good time and even participated in community service during their trip. However, upon their return, a complaint was received by Gibbs from a Delta Airlines senior pilot, describing the employees’ disrespectful behavior towards airline staff, including being inebriated, demanding service after being denied, and inappropriate proposals to flight attendants. Gibbs is furious and demands immediate action to resolve the issue, fearing damage to the company's reputation. He suggests immediate termination of all involved employees, a decision that you recognize is possible under employment at-will laws, but which raises ethical concerns about fairness and due process.

This scenario presents an ethical dilemma involving employee behavior, reputation management, and disciplinary action. As HR manager, you must decide how to proceed to address the incident, considering the company's values, the legal environment, and ethical frameworks that guide managerial decision-making. Your task is to analyze this dilemma thoroughly by identifying the ethical issues, exploring relevant ethical frameworks, and evaluating possible outcomes of your decision based on different ethical approaches.

Paper For Above instruction

Identification of Dilemma

The overarching ethical dilemma revolves around how to address the misconduct of employees following a social outing while balancing fairness, company reputation, legal implications, and ethical responsibilities. On one side, the immediate reaction from leadership, especially Gibbs, is to terminate all involved employees swiftly to protect the company’s reputation and public image. On the other side, there is an ethical obligation to conduct a fair investigation, ensure due process, and consider the context and severity of the behavior before making disciplinary decisions.

The individuals impacted by this dilemma include the employees involved in the ski trip, the HR department responsible for ensuring fair treatment, the company’s management and leadership team, customers who trust Beech-Nut’s reputation, and the broader community that views corporate behavior as a reflection of ethical standards. The company’s reputation, operational integrity, employee morale, and legal standing could all be affected depending on how the situation is handled. Additionally, the employees’ future employment status and their personal well-being are directly involved in the moral considerations at play.

Ethical Frameworks

Utilitarian Approach

The utilitarian framework emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number. Decisions derived from this approach focus on the outcome that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes suffering. In applying utilitarian ethics to the case, the HR manager would evaluate which action produces the most positive consequences for the company, its stakeholders, and society as a whole. For example, immediate termination might serve to reassure the public and protect the company's reputation, thereby maximizing long-term benefits such as customer trust and company stability.

However, this approach may overlook the fairness owed to employees, especially if due process is ignored. If the employees are unfairly dismissed based solely on an impulsive decision, the negative impact on their livelihoods and morale could outweigh the short-term benefits of damage control. The utilitarian perspective would weigh these consequences carefully, advocating for actions that produce the highest net positive outcome.

Research shows that utilitarianism emphasizes practical consequences, often leading managers to consider policies that prioritize company interests when faced with ethical conflicts (Frederick & Statt, 2014). Still, it requires careful assessment of long-term versus short-term effects and may sometimes justify ethically questionable actions if they are believed to serve the majority’s best interests.

Deontological Approach

The deontological approach centers on adherence to moral duties, principles, and rules regardless of the consequences. From this perspective, managers have a duty to treat employees fairly, respect their rights, and uphold justice. In the context of the USB incident, a deontological approach would mandate conducting a formal investigation to establish facts before making disciplinary decisions. This approach emphasizes fairness, due process, and respecting the dignity of each individual, even if the immediate fallout appears damaging to the company’s reputation.

Applying deontology would mean that dismissing employees without proper investigation violates their right to a fair process and could be considered unethical even if it benefits the company's public image. Managers must abide by moral principles that uphold fairness and the rights of employees, rather than solely focusing on outcomes (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). This approach aligns with legal standards and labor rights, fostering an organizational culture built on justice and respect.

Deontological ethics often discourages actions based solely on consequentialist calculations and instead demands adherence to moral duties, which supports ethical decision-making rooted in fairness and integrity (Craig, 2014).

Evaluation of Ethical Dilemma

Based on the frameworks discussed, I believe the deontological approach would best guide the decision in this situation. While the utilitarian perspective might justify immediate termination to protect the company's reputation, it risks sacrificing fairness, due process, and the rights of the employees involved. Ethical leadership requires that managers uphold principles of justice and fairness, especially in disciplinary procedures.

Implementing a fair investigation aligns with deontological ethics by respecting employee rights and maintaining organizational integrity. This approach benefits the organization by fostering a culture of fairness, trust, and respect, which can ultimately lead to better employee morale and public perception over time. The negative implications of a hasty termination include potential legal challenges, damage to morale, and loss of trust among employees. Conversely, a fair investigation demonstrates the company's commitment to ethical standards and could serve as a model for organizational justice.

If I were guided solely by utilitarian principles, I might lean toward immediate dismissal to minimize risk and demonstrate strong action, which could temporarily appease public concern. However, this could harm employee morale, lead to potential legal issues, and damage the company's reputation in the longer term if viewed as unfair or capricious. The positive aspect would be quick damage control, but the negative consequences could include loss of organizational trust and future legal repercussions.

In conclusion, the deontological approach emphasizes the importance of fairness, rights, and justice, guiding the HR manager to conduct a proper investigation and then make an ethically sound decision. This assures that actions taken align with organizational values and societal expectations for moral conduct, reducing the risk of negative perceptions and legal liabilities and fostering an ethical organizational culture.

References

• Craig, R. (2014). Business ethics: A moral reasoning perspective. Routledge.
• Frederick, R. E., & Statt, D. A. (2014). Modern Business Ethics. Routledge.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. Wiley.
• DeGeorge, R. T. (2015). Business Ethics. Pearson.
• Schneider, M., & Ingram, H. (2018). Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations. Routledge.
• Boatright, J. R. (2013). Ethical Decisions in Business. Pearson.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Johnstone, M. (2014). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations. Sage Publications.
• Kernohan, D., & Murphy, J. (2019). Ethical Leadership in Organizations. Springer.
• Kidder, R. M. (2012). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. HarperOne.