Am I Right or Am I Wrong?

In the world of organizations, one is often faced with situations requiring a resolution based primarily on ethics. This can be a slippery slope that must be managed with structure, insight and a full understanding of the issues, as well as the inner working of the organization in question. I shall explore two ethical dilemmas and try to find the correct solution to each, using my current understanding of ethical propriety.

The first dilemma (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 125) places me in the hypothetical position as a newly appointed personnel director who must evaluate applicants for management positions, and present the top three candidates for review and advancement by management. In this particular case, a vacancy on the company president’s staff must be filled. The conflict arises because my president has made it known that he does not want a female on his staff; yet the top three legitimate candidates are female.

I could (1.) find flimsy and subjective reasons for eliminating one of the women, replacing her with a male candidate; (2.) rationalize dismissing the evaluation, and beginning anew, this time with “stacked” criteria that would cause all or some of the women from being removed from the short list or (3.) ignore the implied directive, and submit the three women as planned.
There is a fourth route that I believe I should follow, and that is to submit the three women after having first had a frank conversation with the president and explain that he cannot make such a gender-based request.

As part of management, I have been given a responsibility, to do my job to the best of my ability while keeping the best interests of my company in mind. In my role as personnel director, I am to assess the qualifications of employees and find those best suited for and, hopefully, deserving of promotion to management positions. The criteria I use should be rather clearly formulated for each instance, and those are the criteria I should follow. My job is to put the best people (and, yes, “best” could certainly have several different definitions) in the corresponding positions to further the success and satisfaction within my organization.

If I am to be an ethical representative of my association, I need to exhibit “courageous followership,” a term used by Michael Hackman and Craig Johnson (2004) defining those supportive, responsible and team-playing workers. “(Hackman and Johnson) suggest that assuming responsibility for themselves and taking accountable action are ethical responsibilities. Furthermore, the courage to serve refers to the ethical responsibility of supporting leaders…” (Shockley-Zalabak, p. 118). The president is making, not only a questionably ethical preference by suggesting a non-male for the position; but a clearly illegal one. As Pamela Shockley-Zalabak expresses, “Sexual harassment and discrimination behaviors are both unethical and illegal” which “harm individuals and organizations” (p. 124).

I shall be doing my company, and thus the president, a true disservice by not confronting and advising him of this potentially damaging behavior of his. Though he is surely aware that sexual discrimination is illegal, he probably does not see his “preference” as falling into that category.

As I had stated, this is what I should do. Would I follow this plan? I should hope that I would; however initiating such a confrontation can be a daunting enterprise. I would possibly compromise by submitting the three female applicants first, and then explaining the whys and wherefores after the submission.

The second dilemma places me as a new field sales rep. During the course of training, I have heard customer complaints about quality defects in two products, which my co-workers assure me, are known by the company and that the company is taking steps to rectify the problem. When out “flying solo” for the first time and with an important client, he addresses the issue of the rumored defects. What am I to tell the client?

In this instance, I would do what I should do; I would be as honest as possible with the client, telling him that the company was aware of the defects and that it was working to solve the problem. I would qualify that this information was acquired secondhand, and so could not attest to its veracity. I would, however, assure the customer that I promised to attain as much detailed, accurate information on the company’s progress to improve the products; and would forward that information to him.

I believe it important for the client to see that he is dealing with someone of character, which should be a selling point for his wanting to work with me. I would be forthcoming with the information regardless of its potentially negative result because, “Most experienced professionals know that their ability to handle these sensitive questions ethically contributes to their personal credibility” (Shockley-Zalabak, p. 121). If I am to have an honest, fair and mutually-responsible relationship with this customer, I must show that his faith will not be misplaced. My behavior will be, as it should, a reflection of my company’s, hopefully, ethical culture.

I have solved my two dilemmas based on my perception of ethical behavior. Am I correct, or have I made too simplistic an approach to the problems? I believe I’ve based my decisions on solid moral standards and ethical approaches to these problems. I believe my assessments to be correct. What does the reader think? Am I right or am I wrong?



References
Hackman, M. and Johnson, C. (2004). Leadership: a communication perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Pearson.