Zero Tolerance
Linda's business problem is whether she should write a memo that would explain two employees' violation of a zero-tolerance policy and ask that they be allowed to keep their jobs, despite violating that policy. Should Linda discuss the issues with Mr. Hill, her direct supervisor? What is Victoria's obligation to read Linda's memo if Linda writes one and does her obligation go beyond the bare obligation to enforce the company's policies?
There are a number of critical issues in the case. The first critical issue is whether a company having a zero tolerance policy that results in termination of an employee in good standing is reasonable? Are there ever valid reasons for an employee to violate a zero tolerance policy? If so, was Jim's violation of the company's stated policy a valid reason? If Jim's violation of the zero tolerance policy was reasonable, does that mean that Dan's failure to report the violation was also reasonable? If Jim's violation of the zero-tolerance policy requires the company to terminate Jim, should it likewise result in Dan's termination, since he did not violate the policy? Furthermore, should Linda be terminated for failing to enforce the zero tolerance policy if, rather than immediately firing both Jim and Dan, she advocates on behalf of her employees for them to be an exception to the company's policy?
While there are numerous issues, the only real issue is whether the company should or should not enforce a justifiable violation of a zero tolerance policy by termination of all employees linked to the violation. If the answer to that issue is yes, then Jim, Dan, and Linda should all lose their jobs. This solution seems ludicrous. All three of them are valuable employees who have contributed to the company. The violation in question was not one that placed the business's...
Losing Dan would also cost the company money, as he has significant customer contacts. The other possible solution, which is allowing Jim to receive a warning for his violation seems much more reasonable. Jim acknowledges a wrongdoing and has already committed to not repeating the error.
In fact, the company's zero tolerance policy to no employee use of company vehicles for private business is a bad policy, in the first place, since employees drive the vehicles to and from work. Any employees engaged in running errands during their commute would be violating the policy. The policy should be revisited. Furthermore, even if a zero tolerance policy remains in effect, the remedy for a single violation does not have to be termination; there can be a disciplinary schedule.
The solution in this case appears that it will be communicated by Victoria to Linda. Given that Linda is already aware that Victoria does not support her proposed solution, the hope is that the company embraces a participatory management paradigm and Y Theory that gives Linda the ability to discuss this issue with people other than Victoria. Linda would then be required to communicate those solutions to Jim and Dan, though, if Linda is terminated, one would imagine that Victoria would have that responsibility.
Business Ethics
In this case study, the author examined an exemplary organization to examine the factors that lead to ethical decision-making. Therefore, she was not specifically discussing problems, but, instead, addressing the strengths of the organization and how those strengths contributed to a strong and vibrant ethical environment. She identified issues management…
