Ethical Considerations # 1 (employee, debt, non-profit, temporary)

[NorthStarDelight]

As part of my life-long ambition to educate others of the flaws and shortcomings of the modern-day employer/employee relationship, I'd like to propose a hypothetical situation to gauge people's thoughts on this matter and the reasoning for doing so.

Here goes (remember, this is 100% hypothetical, for basis of discussion, just to make that clear):

A middle-level manager who works for ACME Corp is faced with a rather thorny dilemma, as he's been told that he has to eliminate the "duplicity" in his department, which effectively means that he has to fire one of two employees that perform similar tasks in his office. The first of these two employees is Lisa, a mother of two who has been in the office for eight and a half years, and has proven herself as a loyal, kind-hearted employee who gets along with almost everyone and highly regarded as an excellent person to work within the 15-member department. Unfortunately, she is currently undergoing personal problems due to a recent divorce (no fault of her own, hubby ran off with another woman). To make things worse, her youngest child is suffering a serious illness that has required a number of hospital stays, which has impacted her attendance in the office. Nothing that's a deal-breaker, however, as she's proven her willingness to make up missed days by coming in on Saturdays, and she makes a real effort to keep up with her clients by using her downtime in the waiting room to keep in touch with them via her company-provided Blackberry.

The other employee under consideration is a young gentleman in his mid-twenties, having been hired straight out of biz school two years previously. His name is Eddie, and he's proven himself to be an aggressive go-getter in the office, doing "whatever it takes" to get the job done, and then some. His sights are set high and he has no qualms about achieving his goals. On the down side, he has an abrasive personality that rubs many people the wrong way within the office, and disagreements between him and his co-workers are rather frequent, in sharp contrast to the agreeable Lisa. He thinks nothing of hurting other people's feelings, and actually has been written up about a year previously for verbally abusing an individual in the neighboring department. Despite Eddie's shortcomings, he has caught the attention of upper management due to his ability to deliver on some big numbers for the department. And his attendance record is impeccable - he has yet to take a sick day in his two years he has worked there. He's more than willing to work long hours as well, unlike Lisa, who leaves at 4:30 on the dot daily, to be with her children for the evening.

Bill (the manager) is fortunate to have a healthy working relationship with his superiors, and he has been told that he can choose the person that must be let go without repercussion, as he "knows the department better than anyone." So, while Bill is empowered to decide who to fire without undue worry for making the "wrong" decision so to speak, he is faced with the ethical dilemma of who to let go. He knows if he lets Lisa go, the rest of his department will be highly upset at the move, as she really is well-liked in the office. But if he lays off Eddie, he'll lose a hot-shot employee that has made a real difference in the numbers, in spite of the hard economic conditions that ACME has been facing over the past couple of years since his hire. But his presence will certainly not be missed among the majority of his co-workers - a few of them have come out and spoken openly of their hatred for that man, one of which he had to send home early one day, as she couldn't stop crying due to something that Eddie did (he denied it of course, calling her "far too sensitive for any sane person to have to deal with").

Furthermore, he knows if he lets Lisa go, she'll lose her health coverage, leaving her sick child without insurance, which would almost certainly leave her with a mountain of unpayable debt. He knows that it would be quite difficult for her to get another job, with everything that she's having to endure lately - in short, her being laid off would be just about the worse possible thing that could happen to her at this time. Whereas if he lays off Mr Hotshot, a single man bunking up in a cheap apartment with his college buddy that has a good job as well, Bill knows that Eddie would land on all four feet and get another job pronto - who wouldn't want to hire an ambitious young man that's established solid work credentials in just two years? But he also knows if he keeps Eddie on board instead of Lisa, he'll very likely look better to his superiors in the long run for holding on to and hopefully cultivating a very profitable employee for the department.

Bill has a week to decide before delivering the bad news to either Lisa or Eddie. Who should he let go? Lisa or Eddie? And why?

[Z3N1TH 0N3]

Here are my thoughts in accordance to your description of the situation.

Lisa's situation sounds rough, but it also sounds temporary. It also doesn't sound like the quality of her work is lagging, per se (she makes up her time on the weekends). It sounds like she is happy with her job and probably will be for a long time. As long as the quality of her work isn't falling behind, she is doing everything that your require of her. That makes her an ideal employee. And when her situation does improve, her productivity may also increase, if not to Eddie's level, perhaps close enough.

Eddie, though a good employee in terms of his numbers, seems to cause tension in the office (making co-workers cry, etc.). That tension may result in more people leaving later on, which will cost the company money to replace and train. Also, is your company a place where Eddie can grow in his career? If not, Eddie will probably be out the door in a couple years anyway seeking out the next opportunity. He sounds like a smart guy who will fall on his feet.

If I were the manager posed with this situation, I think I would let Eddie go and write him a very good letter of recommendation and even throw out some contacts for him to get in touch with.

I thought it'd be helpful to let you know that I'm a similar 25 y/o go-getter type, though I'm not rude to anybody or willing to hurt their feelings. I like this hypothetical situation by the way. It looks like you may have more in this series, so keep them coming; should make for some good discussion.

[yellowsnow]

Eddie would be gone. What's the use of a hot shot if you are always having to clean up after him and smooth out ruffled feathers? Eddie has business liabilities. What are you going to do when Eddie turns off your customers? He may be a good sales person but he is also capable of causing a lot of trouble.

[cleasach]

Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight

As part of my life-long ambition to educate others of the flaws and shortcomings of the modern-day employer/employee relationship, I'd like to propose a hypothetical situation to gauge people's thoughts on this matter and the reasoning for doing so.

Will we be getting your thoughts on this scenario?

The first of these two employees is Lisa, a mother of two who has been in the office for eight and a half years, and has proven herself as a loyal, kind-hearted employee who gets along with almost everyone and highly regarded as an excellent person to work within the 15-member department.

My personal philosophy is that many businesses do not give the above the weight it deserves. An employee like Lisa provides much more than her work to the environment. Highly-regarded to me means that she is a team player, will help her co-workers as needed and contribute to a environment in which it is pleasant to work. Employees that feel welcome and content in their workplace are more productive.

Unfortunately, she is currently undergoing personal problems due to a recent divorce (no fault of her own, hubby ran off with another woman). To make things worse, her youngest child is suffering a serious illness that has required a number of hospital stays, which has impacted her attendance in the office. Nothing that's a deal-breaker, however, as she's proven her willingness to make up missed days by coming in on Saturdays, and she makes a real effort to keep up with her clients by using her downtime in the waiting room to keep in touch with them via her company-provided Blackberry.

This is a non-issue if the clients are unaware that there is turmoil in her life and she is fulfilling her role as an employee.

The other employee under consideration is a young gentleman in his mid-twenties, having been hired straight out of biz school two years previously. His name is Eddie, and he's proven himself to be an aggressive go-getter in the office, doing "whatever it takes" to get the job done, and then some. His sights are set high and he has no qualms about achieving his goals.

These are good characteristics for a particular type of business or office environment. If he's a stock trader then he would fit perfectly; if he's working in an environment that values and requires collaboration, I see tensions forming.

On the down side, he has an abrasive personality that rubs many people the wrong way within the office, and disagreements between him and his co-workers are rather frequent, in sharp contrast to the agreeable Lisa. He thinks nothing of hurting other people's feelings, and actually has been written up about a year previously for verbally abusing an individual in the neighboring department.

He's a poison in the office. I would venture to say that the 14 other members of the group would jump in a heartbeat to help Lisa with something if she needed it. Eddie, they would let crash and burn and while that might provide satisfaction and amusement to the workers, it doesn't do the company any good.

Despite Eddie's shortcomings, he has caught the attention of upper management due to his ability to deliver on some big numbers for the department. And his attendance record is impeccable - he has yet to take a sick day in his two years he has worked there. He's more than willing to work long hours as well, unlike Lisa, who leaves at 4:30 on the dot daily, to be with her children for the evening.

Let upper management move him to a mover and shaker, cutthroat department where his skill sets and attitude will be tolerated and probably returned to him in kind. If Lisa's workday ends at 4:30 and she is completing her work, then the fact that she leaves at 4:30 is a non-issue.

Bill (the manager) is fortunate to have a healthy working relationship with his superiors, and he has been told that he can choose the person that must be let go without repercussion, as he "knows the department better than anyone." So, while Bill is empowered to decide who to fire without undue worry for making the "wrong" decision so to speak, he is faced with the ethical dilemma of who to let go.

I'm not understanding the "ethical" part of this dilemma. An ethical dilemma is an issue of right and wrong. If Eddie was the one the manager knew he should keep but he considered keeping Lisa strictly because he felt sorry for her, then that would be an ethical dilemma. But that's not the case here.

He knows if he lets Lisa go, the rest of his department will be highly upset at the move, as she really is well-liked in the office. But if he lays off Eddie, he'll lose a hot-shot employee that has made a real difference in the numbers, in spite of the hard economic conditions that ACME has been facing over the past couple of years since his hire. But his presence will certainly not be missed among the majority of his co-workers - a few of them have come out and spoken openly of their hatred for that man, one of which he had to send home early one day, as she couldn't stop crying due to something that Eddie did (he denied it of course, calling her "far too sensitive for any sane person to have to deal with").

On one hand, the issue of the co-workers feelings should not be considered but on the other hand, productivity and worker morale could tank if she is let go. They may not understand why she was chosen to be let go because she has always fulfilled her responsibilities, has a lot of time with the company and has demonstrated that she is great to work with. I'm not sure what the manager could say was the reason he let Lisa go that would be accepted. If she slacked off or could no longer do the job, they'd be upset but at least the manager would have a firm reason why she was let go. But he doesn't. Eddie on the other hand, has provided a litany of reasons why he should be let go and it probably would not be questioned.

Furthermore, he knows if he lets Lisa go, she'll lose her health coverage, leaving her sick child without insurance, which would almost certainly leave her with a mountain of unpayable debt. He knows that it would be quite difficult for her to get another job, with everything that she's having to endure lately - in short, her being laid off would be just about the worse possible thing that could happen to her at this time. Whereas if he lays off Mr Hotshot, a single man bunking up in a cheap apartment with his college buddy that has a good job as well, Bill knows that Eddie would land on all four feet and get another job pronto - who wouldn't want to hire an ambitious young man that's established solid work credentials in just two years? But he also knows if he keeps Eddie on board instead of Lisa, he'll very likely look better to his superiors in the long run for holding on to and hopefully cultivating a very profitable employee for the department.

You cannot keep employees because you feel sorry for them if they are not performing. Lisa, however, is performing and doing everything she needs to in order to do her job despite what are probably very draining and difficult times. That she is able to do that speaks volumes about her character, integrity and ability to handle pressure and still perform. I'd choose those traits over a hotshot clown who is downright nasty to his colleagues.

Bill has a week to decide before delivering the bad news to either Lisa or Eddie. Who should he let go? Lisa or Eddie? And why?

As explained above, bye bye Eddie.

[lovetheduns]

I don't think this is a very hard one.

Eddie would be cut loose.

I think your "debate" would be far more compelling if Eddie was not abrasive, was a genuine hard worker who still got things done and worked pretty outstanding just happened to not have the baggage that Lisa has.

[hnsq]

Without a doubt fire Lisa. Bill's ethical responsibility is to the shareholders and to the fiscal well-being of the company. Lisa's situation is a tough story, but is not a factor in the decision in any way. You cannot make business decisions based on your employee's personal lives. If Bill were to fire the person who adds the most to the company's financial health, he is ethically irresponsible, as his primary responsibility is towards the well-being of the company. If investors and customers found out that ACME puts emotional factors above the profitability of THEIR investments, they will lose faith in ACME as they realize that ACME does not actually have their best interest in mind.

ACME is not a non-profit which exists for the charity of the employee. It is a business holding up a responsibility towards customers and investors, and in good conscience, must be treated as such.

[lovetheduns]

Originally Posted by hnsq

Without a doubt fire Lisa. Bill's ethical responsibility is to the shareholders and to the fiscal well-being of the company. Lisa's situation is a tough story, but is not a factor in the decision in any way. You cannot make business decisions based on your employee's personal lives. If Bill were to fire the person who adds the most to the company's financial health, he is ethically irresponsible, as his primary responsibility is towards the well-being of the company. If investors and customers found out that ACME puts emotional factors above the profitability of THEIR investments, they will lose faith in ACME as they realize that ACME does not actually have their best interest in mind.

ACME is not a non-profit which exists for the charity of the employee. It is a business holding up a responsibility towards customers and investors, and in good conscience, must be treated as such.

See I think the deciding factor is that the other guy is NOT a good addition to the team. He creates more tension than what is necessary and in the end the group could be so toxic with is presence that they will lose other valued employees.

Now if the guy was a swell guy, got a long with folks, and was still able to produce much better than Lisa- I would say get rid of Lisa.

[cleasach]

Originally Posted by hnsq

Without a doubt fire Lisa.

I was going to add to the end of my response that if hnsq replies, Lisa is toast.

[num1baby]

Originally Posted by hnsq

Without a doubt fire Lisa. Bill's ethical responsibility is to the shareholders and to the fiscal well-being of the company. Lisa's situation is a tough story, but is not a factor in the decision in any way. You cannot make business decisions based on your employee's personal lives. If Bill were to fire the person who adds the most to the company's financial health, he is ethically irresponsible, as his primary responsibility is towards the well-being of the company. If investors and customers found out that ACME puts emotional factors above the profitability of THEIR investments, they will lose faith in ACME as they realize that ACME does not actually have their best interest in mind.

ACME is not a non-profit which exists for the charity of the employee. It is a business holding up a responsibility towards customers and investors, and in good conscience, must be treated as such.

I don't agree with the bolded statement. No matter how much it shouldn't affect work, personal lives do have an effect especially when it is something big like divorce or a sick child. The fact that Lisa is still keeping up with her work is a testament to what kind of worker she is. Knowing that her personal problems are temporary can change whether the person should stay or go.

If a worker goes from good to mediocre or bad, knowing whether it is because of a temporary personal problem or the person has just given up and this is their new standard can make a big difference in whether to keep them or not.

Lisa would stay. I know first-hand how much money one toxic person can cost a company. I have seen a company keep their "star" employee and lose all of their other employees over time and have to keep re-training new employees. The "star" soon knows that they are the star, so get worse with the attitude. Everyone becomes unproductive. It is horrible. There is no way I would keep Eddie.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by num1baby

I don't agree with the bolded statement. No matter how much it shouldn't affect work, personal lives do have an effect especially when it is something big like divorce or a sick child. The fact that Lisa is still keeping up with her work is a testament to what kind of worker she is. Knowing that her personal problems are temporary can change whether the person should stay or go.

If a worker goes from good to mediocre or bad, knowing whether it is because of a temporary personal problem or the person has just given up and this is their new standard can make a big difference in whether to keep them or not.

Lisa would stay. I know first-hand how much money one toxic person can cost a company. I have seen a company keep their "star" employee and lose all of their other employees over time and have to keep re-training new employees. The "star" soon knows that they are the star, so get worse with the attitude. Everyone becomes unproductive. It is horrible. There is no way I would keep Eddie.

I guess it does really depend on what kind of company they are working for. If they are in a large public company with an ultra-competitive atmosphere, Lisa would go without a doubt. If they are for a smaller, family owned company then that would be a different story altogether. That being said, if it is a public company, the employee who adds the most value to shareholders comes first.