Introduction
Workplace affairs always represent a challenge as a potential source of concern due to the delicate nature of the subject matter. In the case in question, the issue is aggravated by the fact that the company’s ostensibly best and most productive employee is not only revealed to have an affair with a coworker but also revealed to have made a range of unethical decisions in regard to favoring her. Based on the principles of Kant’s ethical philosophy, specifically on Categorical imperative, firing both Warren and Landen would be the most reasonable step since it will prevent Warren from depriving the rest of the staff members of their well-deserved benefits as a result of favoring Landen.
Ethicality of the Situation
Presently, the issue appears to be highly unethical, mainly due to the problem of favoritism. According to the case details, Warren has been showing strong favoritism to Lander, which has resulted in her being offered better job assignments and overall making her performance easier. Since the rest of the staff members do not have the same opportunities for being provided with easier and more lucrative tasks, the observed situation misaligns with the basic premises of Kant’s ethics. Namely, the absence of goodwill in regard to all staff members is evident in a case in point.
Furthermore, the foundational principle soft eh Kantian ethics is being broken in the observed situation. Specifically, the categorical imperative, which postulates that no action can be justified if it tramples the foundational idea of what is deemed morally appropriate (Westphal, 1995). In turn, the situation observed in the target workplace setting clearly challenges the concept of normalcy and justice in the organizational setting. Specifically, according to Bowie (1998, p. 1083), companies are morally obliged to provide meaningful work to employees. In turn, the described situation implies that Lander is provided the job that she may not deserve, whereas the rest of the staff members that may be worth it are deprived of a chance to engage in meaningful work. Thus, from the Kantian perspective, the situation observed in the target setting is highly unethical.
Personal Conflicts Brought into the Workplace
Another argument against the continuation of the affair between Warren and Lander concerns the possible adverse effects of the conflicts between them on their workplace performance, as well as the performance of the company in general. From the Kantian ethics perspective, the observed contradiction between the acceptance of the relationships between Warren and Lander and the likelihood of adverse changes in their performance also calls for the introduction of an intervention that will help to reset their relationships to the status quo. Specifically, in Kantian ethics, all morality must be derived from reason, as Yudanin (2015) explains, which is why the reasonable choice of removing the high probability of a massive workplace conflict appears to have the greatest priority currently.
Arguably, the specified approach toward the subject matter could be considered questionable since Yudanin (2015) particularly specifies that only negative duties must stem from Kant’s Categorical Imperative. However, Borowski (1998) also warns to avoid the Dilbert principle, namely, the idea that companies typically choose to promote the least competent employees to managerial positions, as the main objective of applying Kantian ethics in the organizational setting. Therefore, given the fact that a range of staff members show higher competency rates than Lander, as the case under analysis states, preventing the relationships between Warren and Lander from continuing should be seen as an ethically sound decision from the perspective of Kant’s philosophical approach.
Issues to Investigate
Additionally, there are multiple issues to investigate due to the complex situation that the relationships between Warren and Lander have created. Specifically, the instances of favoritism must be considered closer as the most insulting cases of Warren’s power abuse caused by his affair. Moreover, the negative effects of warren’s behavior will have to be examined further. Specifically, the company’s performance before and after the affair developed will have to be compared to locate correlation and, most importantly, causation.
Investigation Strategies
Since the information needed for the investigation and the following analysis are likely to be concealed from managers, additional tools for data search will have to be deployed. Firstly, and most importantly, having an open conversation with Warren and Lander separately must be regarded as the major step toward beginning to disentangle the complication in question. Particularly, it will be necessary to determine whether each of them is aware of the challenges that their situation has created in the workplace and the effects that their actions, particularly Warren’s favoritism and lander’s acceptance of it, have on other employees.
Afterward, anonymous interviews with other staff members, particularly those affected by Warren favoring Lander over them when distributing tasks and responsibilities, must be conducted. The specified step will allow for defining the extent of employees’ dissatisfaction and the levels of hostility that the issue has created. According to Borowski (1998, p. 1624), based on Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it is in the best interests of the company to promote manager-employee relationships based on the “guidelines where management and employees treat each other as human beings and members of the same team.” In turn, the current situation is as far from the described scenario as it can get, with Lander being given the priority and authority that she does not deserve, especially compared to other staff members who perform significantly better. As a result, the urgency of actions to be taken will be identified, and the action plan will be designed accordingly.
Finally, the assessment of Warren’s and Lander’s performance will have to be conducted and compared to the performance of other staff members. Thus, the effects of dismissing them and hiring other experts instead will be evaluated correctly (Tapek, 2018). Namely, the costs and damages associated with firing Warren s the person deemed to be the key figure in the company and the crucial factor to which the organization owes its success.
Course of Actions
The situation described in the case is especially challenging to resolve not only because of the moral implications and the embarrassing issues to be discussed, particularly the unprofessional conduct of Warren and Lander, but also due to the need to select the option that will not affect the company’s profits negatively. According to the case details, Warren has built a reputation of a truly outstanding reporter whose stories constitute the foundation for the company’s popularity and appeal. However, on further assessment of the current state of employees’ performance, it has been observed that some staff members are capable of performing just as well as Warren does. Therefore, the organization can risk the threat of losing Warren as an employee.
Specifically, talking to Warren and Lander first must be seen as the priority. In case neither of them is willing to abandon the current line of behavior and is, instead, willing to sacrifice workplace ethics and corporate goals for the sake of their personal needs, it will be necessary to dismiss them. Although the described solution might not seem to be particularly in line with Kantian ethics, it, in fact, supports the concept of the Categorical Imperative since it represents a moral choice geared toward supporting other staff members and keeping them employed (Tapek, 2018). If the company continues turning a blind eye to the situation with Warren and Lander, not only will the turnover rate rise, but also the company’s performance rates will plummet as a result of Lander delivering poor performance. Thus, the organization will need to cut costs by laying off staff members, which will doubtlessly affect the latter adversely. Therefore, unless Warren and Lander are convinced to discontinue their relationships, both will have to be dismissed.
Conclusion
Based on Kant’s Categorical Imperative, namely, the focus on the morality of the action rather than its implications, dismissing both Warren and Lander and appointing other staff members in their places must be considered a necessity. Specifically, applied to the business context, the principles of Kantian ethics imply that the organization cannot sacrifice its integrity for the sake of keeping the best employee. Arguably, by firing Warren, the company will elevate itself in the eyes of its staff members and other stakeholders, which will allow it to retain its influence and popularity. Moreover, given the current situation observed in the workplace, Warren’s skills and especially his being an irreplaceable employee, appear to have been significantly exaggerated. Thus, applying Kant’s morality principles to the case and conducting a detailed investigation of the issue, particularly the effects that Warren and Landon’s relationships have had on the opportunities for other staff members to advance in the workplace, is needed. Afterward, Warren and Landon will have to be dismissed unless some extenuating circumstances, such as a low impact on staff members’ workplace opportunities, are found. However, given the current level of discontent and concern raised by a broad range of employees, according to the case study, firing the couple seems to be the step that would align with the company’s ethics best.
References
Borowski, P. J. (1998). Manager-employee relationships: Guided by Kant’s categorical imperative or by Dilbert’s business principle. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(15), 1623-1632.
Bowie, N. E. (1998). A Kantian theory of meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics, 1083-1092.
Tapek, K. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative. Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym, 21(7), 85-96.
Westphal, K. R. (1995). How Full is Kant’s Categorical Imperative? JRE, 3, 465.
Yudanin, M. (2015). Can positive duties be derived from Kant’s categorical imperative? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18(3), 595-614.