Ethical Dilemmas as the Newly

Ethical Dilemmas

As the newly appointed personnel director, one of my responsibilities is to screen applicants for management promotions. Although this is normally a task that involves simply selecting the best three candidates for promotion, in this instance the position is for the president of the company's personal staff. The president doesn't want a woman on his staff, and the top three candidates are all women. Locke's rights theory clearly directs what I should do; however, my desire to retain my job would temper this action.

John Locke (1690) argued that God created everyone equal and free. This equality is a law of nature that Locke surmises indicates that no other person should harm another's life, liberty, health, or possessions. Governments are charged, in part, with the defense of our natural rights; however, when governments violate this natural law, they should be dissolved. This rights theory clearly directs me to treat each candidate as equal, regardless of their gender. The three best candidates should be presented to the president. The fact that they are women shouldn't matter. In addition, the government of the organization, in the form of the president, should be dissolved, according to Locke, as he is unable to defend the natural right of equality for all employees.

Regretfully, often what is ethically right and what actually happens differs greatly. Therefore, in order to continue my employment with the organization, keeping in mind that the president is a supervisor, I would present the top three candidates, despite the fact they are female, and also include the top three male candidates. I would explain that the female candidates are superior, and why, and hope the president makes the right decision.

Recommending the top candidates for managerial promotions normally is a fairly straight-forward task. However, the president's preference for male candidates makes this particular situation an ethical dilemma. Locke's theory of rights surmises that all people are equal, and for this reason, I should simply submit the top three candidates despite the fact they are female. However, in order to keep my job, I would not only submit the female candidates, but also three male candidates and hope the president makes the ethical decision. If he does not, perhaps the board will need to appoint a new president.

In the second situation, as a member of a self-directed work team, it becomes clear that although the team as a whole is running very efficiently, one member, Jane, is not helping her teammates when they need it. As the other team members have asked me to address this topic with Jane, Wallace's morality on habit to prefer public to private motivations comes into play, and not only directs what I should do but also what I would do in this situation.

Wallace surmises that a responsible public communicator reveals the source of opinion and information. In this way, the public (or in this case, Jane) can weigh any bias, prejudice or self-centered motivations the other team members may have in airing these complaints. According to Wallace, concealing the identity of the source material would be unethical (Enos, 1997; Johannesen, 2001). For this reason, when I spoke to Jane I would involve the specific team members who have come to me with concerns. Although I wouldn't involve the entire team, to avoid Jane from feeling like she was being ganged up on, including the team members who have come to me with complaints that Jane hasn't been as helpful as she should be when others are overloaded, will help ensure she can address these people and make certain that the complaints aren't based on bias. Given Jane's skill at doing her job, as demonstrated by upper management's positive opinion of her and her customer service award, perhaps some of the concerns are exaggerated.