The CEO of a medium-sized and moderately successful family-owned contracting business is relying on Frank who is the chief financial officer and a member of the Executive Committee to come with an ethical means of downsizing in the business. Frank decides to use the performance appraisal scores of employees to decide the ones that will be laid-off.
Unfortunately, there are some employees in the business who have not been evaluated for the last six years. This is because the CEO had accepted a request by the employees to be evaluated informally (Shanks 6). This makes the production of the performance appraisal for such employees a bit hard for the managers in some departments. The CEO suggests that it is time for these employees to retire because their performance is not as good as it used to be. Frank is in a dilemma because if he agrees with the CEO, he will be unfair to these employees and his proposed method of laying-off will not be effective. On the other hand, if frank disagrees with the CEO it will be a move against the wishes of his boss. The CEO argues that these employees are making ‘pretty good money and retrenching them would help the business save some cash. The CEO is not sure if these employees who have been with the business since it began are aware that they have not been performing well. Frank has an option to disagree with the CEO for the rights of the employees or agree with the CEO and secure his position in the executive.
Right Thing
Business ethics has stipulated guidelines, that individuals in a business should conduct themselves in an ethical and moral manner. The idea by frank to use performance appraisal to lay off some employees is very moral and frank should stick to his decision. He should try to convince the CEO of the importance of doing things in a moral manner for purposes of the name and the future of the business. The idea to lay off some employees because they are earning good money regardless of their appraisal is very unethical. The managers in the departments had previously questioned the decision to make informal appraisals to some employees and the CEO had told them that it was none of their decision (Shanks 7). Frank should insist on the use of performance appraisal scores.
Frank and his Career
By doing the right thing by not laying off these employees, it means that Frank will disagree with the CEO. This is likely to lead to demotion or loss of his career. If the CEO disagrees completely with his decision to use the performance appraisal scores, the best thing is to quit his position in the executive. This would mean that he will not be part of the team that will lay off the employees. He will not be guilty of any offenses and he will not be blamed for the wrong action. As stated before, the managers had questioned the issue of conducting performance appraisals informally and the CEO had told them it was none of their business. If Frank is against the same idea that the managers were against sometimes back, the CEO could be worried about laying off employees in an immoral and unethical manner. Since the performance appraisal will not be used, he will not lose his job since the business seems interested in laying off those employees that are earning good money.
Personal View
Frank could have been promoted so that blame is put on him when employees are laid off. In addition, he is the only non-family member on the executive committee (Shanks 1). Again, some members of the family were concerned about his fit with the culture of the business. All the other members in the group have family ties and they could agree to be against him on the issue. Quitting this position would do him a favor than risk his personality.
References
Shanks, Thomas. The case of the Performance Appraisal. 1997. Web.