Introduction
After analyzing the every angel of the case, it can be said that this is the picture of the stereotyping prejudice of people with AIDS. Every issue that has been raised in this case has a strong background and relevant reason. The disagreement between Ron Debitson and the others does not only represent the confliction among them, but also among their holding beliefs. The conflict is more to be said between the religious belief, favoritism, organizational culture and the justice, business ethics, equal opportunity. There is no doubt that the whole situation has a larger impact on the organization. The perspective of this case and so other relevant issues are more than controversial, but not impossible to establish some strong recommendation. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see how various moral obligations play major role at individual or corporate level. However, this paper is to find out some important answers such as:
- The ethical issues and what are their perspectives related with this case.
- Who are involved in this case and what is the background of their opinion.
- Whether the decision made by the others not to hire Paul is ethical or not.
- Some recommendations or suggestion for Ron that he can try to overcome the sophisticated situation.
Ethical issues in this case
At first it would be better to know what is ethic. Ethic is principles and values that guides the activities and decision within a company. These principles and values can be written or unwritten.
The following ethical issues need to be highlighted:
Religious belief
The religious belief can be pointed as on of the ethical issue in this case. It is needed to say that homosexuality is a great sin in every religion. No religion allows such type of activities. Whatever, Patrick Rush had strong religious beliefs and consequently, he never could allow Paul to be the employee of his company. Though there is no base of his thought about Paul, but it is nothing but his religious belief. Patrick has also mentioned that it is his personal belief about Paul. But personal belief or religious issue has no interrelation with employing somebody.
Employ policy
Employ policy from the local temporary agency was totally unethical. The agreement with the local agency is to be said as the result of wrong carry out for greenway environmental technology. The temporary employee here is unable to get the placement fee, which they should have got. Moreover, on the one hand, the company has the customer like federal government and on the other hand they are implementing unethical hiring policy. This kind of self-contradictory activities is not expected from such type of organization. It may be the cause for reducing the reputation as well as hampering the guiding principles.
Wrong implementation of policy
The largest customer of the company is according to the case is federal government. But the company has not followed the rules of equal employment opportunity commission guide. As an organization, the government rules and regulations should be maintained. Every organization run through maintaining some policy and here the company is failed to do so. Therefore, from this perspective the company is unsuccessful to maintain the relationship as well as their policy.
Incorrect guess
Another ethical issue is to guess incorrectly about Paul. There is no evidence that whether Paul is homosexual or not. In addition, though Paul was considered effeminate by some staff, but it does not indicate the homosexuality. It would not be wrong to say that Paul is the victim of their prejudice consideration. If such type of guess is occurred then there is no certainty that other employees will not be the victim on the basis of only guess. It certainly will affect internal environment and so the success of the organization as well.
Misunderstanding about homosexuality
Patrick has the wrong idea that who are homosexual, most of them are HIV positives. This type of thinking is similar to the early thinking when people had the misconception that AIDS is just a gay disease. It is true that homosexual is one of the strong reasons to spread out the HIV disease, but certainly it can not be the reason for not to employ Paul. The judgment should have been according to the working efficiency of Paul. Additionally, now-a-days homosexuality has been allowed in most of the western countries. In America, they even can marriage and they owe their own church. Whatever, the other employees may possibly think that their life pattern and belief can be destroyed after receiving the message of such type interferes to Paul’s case.
Wrong idea about AIDS
Patrick has also the wrong thought regarding the vital issue AIDS. This type of thinking from such type of high educated people is totally unexpected. Information about AIDS is now-a-days available and it is very necessary because the disease is the most preventable disease in the world. Moreover, the disease can not be spread out through using bathroom or drinking from water fountain or such type of casual contact. There can be no argument for such type of view. It is highly protested. It would be right to say that the thinking of Patrick about AIDS may represent an erroneous reflection about the function of the company to the customer.
Preferential treatment
The favoritism from the other stakeholders can be mentioned as another ethical issue. Though Ron’s boss Martin Widdup had fame about his fair judgment and positive consideration, but he is failed to show the reflection. Due to the close relationship among the childhood friend or long serving colleagues, Ron has not got any support in favor of him to provide work for Paul. Consequently, after knowing these, Ron has to think about his future with the company and also about his ethical belief. This type of preferential treatment not only affects Paul, but also it has a larger impact in such type of organization. Favoritism can cause hamper of the rapid growth of the company or may reduce the confidence of the other employees. It is because the employees of a growth company always consider themselves as the important part of the organization.
Who are the stakeholders and what their moral obligations are
If we look this case then we can see there are five stakeholders; Ron, Paul, Patrick, Martin and Sam. All they have different individual role in this case. The following discussion would be about their moral obligation and what is their role in the mentioned issue:
Ron Debitson
Ron can be said as the central character of the whole case. He is the only person who is in favor to employ Paul. He is very young as a member of top management. He proposed to employ Paul as a permanent employee. From his background it is found that he has no conservative outlook and is very efficient about his work and his contribution to the company. That is why when he found the negative response from the other then he become thunder. His thinking does not match with the thinking with the others. He has worked for a long time with social issue like AIDS and has faced so many practical problems. He considered himself as less important of the top management level because of his youth age. May be rejection of his propose is the result of his thought about his position.
Paul Carvey
Paul is to be considered as the reason of raising issue. He has improved his efficiency by his remarkable performance and consequently has got incentives from his project manager. Some members of his department have the negative idea which is totally unethical. Paul has got the temporary job at the greenway environmental technology company through the illegal hiring policy. He should have made contact with the other members as much as possible. His organizational behavior as for example not to talk about his personal life or less interaction with the organizational members influences others to think such type consideration. If Paul could contact regularly with the customer or the other members and act as an average person then it might change situation.
Patrick Rush
Patrick has clearly shown his position power in this issue. It should be mentioned that his immediate decision when Ron rose about Paul was quite autocracy. He has strong religious belief and may be that makes him to think about Paul in this way. But to be sure, he could check Paul whether his assumption is right or wrong. If he would found that Paul is not homosexual then that could change the whole situation. Furthermore, he should have had the proper knowledge about the disease of AIDS and the relevant information. It is quite unexpected from a person who is in such type of position.
Sam Sasbe
Sam Sasbe shows his favoritism without considering any argument which is very much similar to Patrick. His logic regarding not to employ Paul was what the company customers may think. As an executive vice president, Sam should have known that business ethic does not support what they are thinking about Paul. He was also aware about the federal government, who was the largest customer of the company. So the logic that Sam has given is in conflict with the equal employment opportunity commission guide.
Martin Widdup
Martin Widdup is the owner and controller of the company and is well known for his justice. But he is failed to show it because what he has given the logic against Paul is quite self-contradictory. He has mentioned greenway is his and would employ whoever he wanted. This kind of speech is the reflection of autocracy and absence of democracy.
Is the proposed decision not to hire Paul is an ethical decision?
Honestly and without any doubt it can be said that, the proposed decision not to hire Paul is not an ethical decision at all. From four perspectives it is totally unethical; employ rules and regulation, humanity, company success and business ethics. All these are shortly discussed below:
Employ rules and regulation
The decision not to hire Paul is opposition of employ rules and regulation. Employ rules and regulation suggest a person never would be treated by his religion, his life style or his gender during considering employing. When Patrick, Sam or Martin made the decision for Paul, then they have only considered what they are assuming about Paul.
Humanity
When the company felt that they need employee then they did employ Paul temporary. But after utilizing him, they want to through away him and it is anti humanity. Martin owes the company, but it does not mean that he will do whatever he wants. There should be practice of democracy. He could ask the other stakeholders and then take the decision.
Company success
The company success depends on the efficient people who are working and has reputation from past experience. Whatever, Paul has improved his efficiency and got consecutive complimentary remark from his project manager. So, if Paul fired then there is no doubt it would affect the accounting department.
Business ethics: business ethics means the code or principles by which the activities of a company will be guided. In case of Paul, the principles have not been maintained yet and the autocratic decision has imposed. So from the ethical point of view the decision is reasonably incorrect.
What Ron should do now?
It is a million dollar question, what Ron should do now. In this situation Ron may take the following action:
Avoiding
Ron may think that he has nothing to do because it is not his concern. Then he may avoid this issue as it may hamper his position in the company or may feel, he is powerless to do anything. He also may feel that which is mentioned at the beginning of the case his views are not given equal weight and this nothing but the reflection of that. If Ron does such type of step then there is no doubt that it would be the worst decision.
Smoothing
In this case Ron may found his disagreement with Patrick, Sam and Martin and then to uphold his belief he may give up his job from this company. As because of his efficiency and experience, it would not be difficult to find a better job for him. But it is strongly recommended to not to do so.
Forcing
Certainly this would be a better idea than the two action mentioned above. Ron may get additional support from the other stakeholders, because if they share in his concern, then he will get the power which will help him to persuade his bosses. It is easy for the boss to ignore or attack one employee like Ron, but it would be difficult to attack all the others. Loo (2004), states that “[a]n interdepartmental union is a good way of mustering power against an abusive employer”.
Confronting
Confronting is the way to “face the conflict directly and working it through to a mutually satisfactory resolution” (Newstrom and Keith, 2002, p.267). In this case Ron may express his outlook regarding AIDS by calling an informal seminar. He could convince the other parties by informing the right information about AIDS and ethical matters regarding Paul, such as not to suspect Paul, make Paul convince to talk face to face about his opinion, what are the main reasons of AIDS, how it can or can not be spread out, what would be benefits if Paul stays and the like.
So, from the above four possibilities the last one is the best that Ron can implement to get the better result. To do this, Ron needs to consider the following step:
- What is my problem?
- What parts of my problem is controllable?
- What parts of my problem is not controllable?
- What I can change?
- What I can not change?
- What makes this problem?
- What is my expectation?
After getting the all answer Ron should go forward.
References
Loo, Tristan. (2004). How To Deal With A Difficult Boss. Robert Bacal: Conflict911.com. Web.
Newstrom, W. John., and Keith Davis. (2002). Organizational Behaviour. 11th edition McGraw-Hill-Irwin.