To Whom It May Concern From Ethics Officer Friendly Digits

To Whom This May Concernfrom Ethics Officer Friendly Digits

To Whom This May Concernfrom Ethics Officer Friendly Digits

This document presents an ethical and legal analysis of King’s case within the organizational context of Friendly Digits. It discusses the ethical dilemma using Badaracco’s right versus right framework, examines the legal implications related to résumé fraud and employment at will, and provides a recommended course of action that balances both ethical considerations and organizational policies.

Paper For Above instruction

King’s history with Friendly Digits demonstrates a track record of excellent performance, which significantly contributed to her promotion to a position that requires a Master in Business Administration (MBA). Her dedication and successful performance justified her rise within the organization, where her ratings and achievements have been highly commendable. However, despite her performance, King lacks the official qualification—an MBA—to officially qualify for her current senior Vice President role. This discrepancy presents a complex ethical dilemma, which can be analyzed through Badaracco’s right versus right framework, designed to resolve conflicts between legitimate moral values (Badaracco, 2016).

The core of the dilemma involves weighing adherence to organizational policies against recognizing individual effort and performance. On one side, organizational policies stipulate that the position requires a valid MBA qualification; this is a legal and procedural requirement designed to maintain standards. On the other hand, King’s extensive experience and exemplary performance argue for reward and recognition, potentially justifying her promotion despite lacking the formal degree. Both options possess morally valid reasoning: maintaining organizational standards and acknowledging dedication. The challenge lies in selecting the more ethically justifiable course of action that balances these conflicting moral imperatives.

Legal Analysis: Résumé Fraud and Employment at Will Doctrine

From a legal standpoint, King’s actions bring into focus issues of résumé fraud and employment law. Résumé fraud involves the intentional misrepresentation of qualifications, such as falsely claiming to have an MBA when only twelve credits remain to complete the degree (Bredeson, 2012). This form of misrepresentation can result in civil or criminal penalties depending on jurisdiction and is often grounds for termination. If an employer discovers dishonesty regarding educational credentials, it is justified under legal doctrines to dismiss the employee, especially if the representations influence hiring or promotion decisions.

The employment-at-will doctrine further supports this posture. Under this doctrine, employers have the right to terminate employees at any time for any lawful reason or no reason at all, unless explicitly stated otherwise in employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements (Winfield, 2013). Since résumé fraud constitutes a form of misrepresentation that can undermine the integrity of employment and the organization’s standards, the company has a reasonable legal foundation to terminate King’s employment if her résumé falsely indicated possession of an MBA.

However, legal rights do not always equate with ethical appropriateness. The organization must consider whether terminating King solely on the basis of résumé fraud, given her contribution and dedication, might constitute an unfair or overly punitive action. The law provides a baseline for permissible actions, but organizational ethics often demand a nuanced approach that considers context, intent, and potential restitution or corrective measures (Trevino & Nelson, 2017).

Recommendations: Balancing Ethical and Legal Considerations

Given the complexities, the recommended course of action involves providing King with an opportunity to complete her MBA legitimately. Specifically, the organization should allow her to finish her coursework and obtain recognized certification, which would make her promotion ethically justifiable and align with organizational policies. This approach respects both the legal framework and the ethical principles articulated through Badaracco’s right versus right dilemma, by balancing recognition of effort with adherence to standards.

Offering her a chance to complete her degree not only rectifies the current issue but also fosters a culture of integrity and fairness. It allows King to redeem herself and provides her with the legitimate qualification necessary for her current and future roles. Additionally, this solution helps retain a valuable, committed employee, whose performance has significantly contributed to the organization’s success, thereby aligning with principles of beneficence and organizational loyalty (Hosmer, 2018).

Implementing this recommendation involves establishing a clear plan for her to complete the MBA, possibly through flexible scheduling or tuition reimbursement programs. The organization should communicate that achieving the official certification is the condition for continuation in her role or future promotions. This transparency ensures fairness, maintains organizational standards, and upholds ethical commitments to integrity and employee development (Trevino, Nelson, & Kohl, 2020).

Conclusion

King’s case exemplifies a conflict between respect for organizational standards and recognition of individual merit—an ideal scenario for applying Badaracco’s right versus right framework. Legally, résumé fraud justifies termination under the employment at will doctrine; ethically, offering her an opportunity to complete her degree emphasizes fairness and developmental support. The recommended course of action—allowing her to finish her MBA—efficiently balances the competing moral considerations, promotes organizational integrity, and fosters employee growth. It underscores the importance of exercising ethical judgment that considers both legal rights and moral responsibilities, thereby reinforcing a culture of fairness and accountability within the organization.

References

  • Badaracco, J. (2016). Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose Between Right and Right. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • Bredeson, D. (2012). Applied Business Ethics: A Skills-Based Approach. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
  • Hosmer, L. T. (2018). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Routledge.
  • Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. Wiley.
  • Winfield, P. H. (2013). The Province of the Law of Tort. Cambridge University Press.
  • Smith, J. (2019). Ethical Issues in Employee Qualification and Certification. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(3), 531-542.
  • Johnson, M., & Schuele, M. (2015). Résumé Fraud and Employment Law. Legal Studies Journal, 24(2), 201-218.
  • Franklin, R. (2020). Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Human Resources. Human Resource Management Review, 30(2), 100702.
  • Williams, C. (2021). Organizational Policies and Ethical Decision-Making. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(4), 385-410.
  • Seeger, M. W., & Sellnow, T. L. (2016). Conflict Resolution and Ethical Decision-Making. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 20(3), 1-15.

Related Assignments