Frank's dilemma: temperance and advocacy for longtime employees

Temperance

Frank's dilemma is that the long-time employees may not understand that their performance has been sub-par. They are thus being evaluated against criteria which heretofore have not applied to them. In this way, there are essentially two sets of criteria for dismissal being used -- one is the performance reviews and the other is somewhat more arbitrary. By dismissing each of these three employees, there will be no more employees in such circumstances. However, the dismissal may send a strong signal to the other employees about how much the company genuinely values its employees, calling into question everybody's long-term status with the company. It is understood in physical jobs that older employees will not be as effective as younger. The lack of formal agreements complicates this issue.

Temperance here for Frank may or may not have negative consequences. In this situation, he can feel that he has made some good first impressions, but it is unknown if standing up for these employees will harm his career ambitions. This case illustrates the degree to which the choice of temperance depends on the amplitude of the outcome. The employees are not likely to be put into dire straits if they are let go, but they are going to be treated unfairly. The unfairness is a continuation of the decision made several years ago by both the employees and the CEO.