The paper "How Workplace Ethics Decisions Could Be Taken to Bring Sanity into a Workplace" is a perfect example of a management assignment. The following five case studies demonstrate how workplace ethics decisions /actions could be taken to bring sanity into a workplace where the workers have abused their rights and place their personal needs ahead of the business requirements. Case Study 1: Marwa is an administrative assistant in the Human Resources Department. Her good friend Manhal is applying for a job with the company and Marwa has agreed to serve as a reference.
Manhal approaches her for advice on preparing for the interview. Marwa says she can get a copy of the actual interview questions and considers making a copy of the list so her friend Manhal can best prepare for the interview. Ethical Decisions for Case Study 1 The ethical issue or problem in the case study above is that of exposing the contents of an interview meant for all potential employees of Bellwood Computer Network. It is the rules at Bellwood Computer Network that nepotism, self-serving attitude and unethical behavior should be frowned at by the employees (Johnson, 2007). My decision against this act of workplace impropriety will affect Marwa, our administrative assistant, and he may have to be punished or redeployed to a section of the company that has no direct link to the Company’ s interview for new employees (Johnson, 2007). These three alternative actions may be employed to address the leak of the Company’ s interview: (a) redeploy all the members of the administrative department— this will affect all the employees in this department (this is seriously the worse action).
(b) redeploy only the administrative assistants that have knowledge of Marwa’ s action but refused to report to the company.
(c) the best alternative is to change the entire contents of the interview and request for Marwa to foot the bill (Johnson, 3007). Each affected person in the action 4 above may want the Company to critically investigate the matter to ascertain who was actually wrong or right, as this is the best way to address employees’ grievances (Johnson, 2007). Therefore, having duly investigated this incident, Marwa will be suspended from the Company for two weeks without pay, and he would be redeployed from the administration department because of his poor judgment in revealing the contents of the Company’ s interview to his friend (Johnson, 2007). Case study 2: Emily works in Quality Control and each year several computers are found to be serviceable but not of selling quality.
Her supervisor decides that these computers should go to a good cause, for example, the local elementary schools. No specific records are kept other than what Emily produces herself. Emily needs a computer for her son who is studying at college.
The supervisor provides 12 such computer systems to Emily as excess to requirements, Emily delivers 11 to schools but decides to keep 1 computer for her son – this she says will be given to a school at a later date when her son no longer needs the computer. Ethical Decisions for Case Study 2 The ethical issue/problem here is that of self-aggrandizement or putting self-interest over the Company’ s interest (Johnson, 2007). Emily understands that: (i) the computers were meant for the schools, not for any member of her family; (ii) the Company wants its rule or policy respected by all the employees; (iii) diverting Company’ s products to personal use is against the policy of the Company (Johnson, 2007). Emily will be mainly affected by any ethical decision made on this issue because she personal decided to flout the Company’ s rule without making any recourse to her superiors at work. These three alternative actions to address this situation may be: (i) to fire Emily for her bad judgment; (ii) to query her superiors in the Company for not following up the distribution of the computers to the schools; (iii) to request that other employers in Emily’ s department be served letters of warning for not discouraging her from turning the Company’ s property into hers (Johnson, 2007). It is natural that each person affected by action 4 will seek fair hearing whereby they could defend their own actions in relation to the matter under consideration (Johnson, 2007).
ReferencesJohnson, C.E. (2007). Ethics in the workplace: tools and tactics for organizational transformation, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.