This paper recounts a personal workplace experience involving an unfair production quota policy enforced during a period of reduced workload and impending Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The author describes being penalized for missing quota despite circumstances beyond their control, including insufficient work volume and being paired with unproductive coworkers. The paper examines whether the situation constituted a legal or contractual violation, why formal dispute resolution was bypassed in favor of resignation, and what broader implications management dysfunction can have on both employees and organizational health. The author concludes that blind policy enforcement without contextual consideration is inherently unjust.
This paper recounts an instance in which I was treated unfairly in the workplace. The details addressed include what happened, what type of supposed violation occurred, what was done to address the unfair treatment, whether formal means were used, why formal means were bypassed if applicable, whether the matter was adequately resolved, whether some form of dispute resolution would have worked better, and what impact failing to resolve the issue may have had. While there are many instances where workplace disputes and miscues can be corrected, blind and sweeping policies enforced with no consideration of context are not just and should never be in place.
The situation described involves a former job that included a production quota. The employer's corporate name and industry will not be identified; however, the job involved the physical movement of boxed product and was not sales-related. For a period of a few months, there was plenty of work and a high volume of pieces to be moved. During this peak period, I worked two to three months straight with only two days off. However, the volume slowly tapered off and eventually there was a significant shortage of work.
Too many workers remained on staff relative to the available pieces to move, making it nearly impossible to meet quotas in many instances. Productive workers were paired with unproductive ones and required to split pieces 50/50. I found myself in precisely that situation and ended up missing quota for a given period. I was called into the office and informed of this, and a formal warning was issued for the missed quota.
What was particularly striking was the fact that the supervisor who delivered the warning was fully aware that the lack of work volume — combined with the sub-standard effort of certain coworkers — was the sole reason the quota had been missed. This was evident because I had never missed quota during the peak period. Even so, the supervisor was obligated to issue the warning due to directives from higher management. As management research consistently shows, rigid top-down directives that ignore ground-level context often undermine both employee morale and organizational performance.
"Distinguishes ethical unfairness from legal violation"
"Explains choice to quit rather than file complaint"
The employer was clearly acting improperly from a managerial standpoint. Indeed, this was likely one of the major reasons the company was in such financial difficulty. While standing up for what is right and just may have been the more ethical and principled course of action, the immediate priority was maintaining employment and meeting financial obligations. The company was — and continued to be — paying a steep price for its incompetence and indifference, and that outcome is a fitting consequence of the management culture that produced it.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.