Recognizing the Event
Chris becomes a relief manager at the bank, a position he had not previously held. This requires him to make decisions on a variety of topics, despite his limited understanding of the basic industry. He is at a disadvantage due to the inability to consult with more experienced employees.
A given case is associated with the new cashier Carol, who lacked $900 at her drive-in window (Plath, 1991). Chris can pinpoint a specific error in which she confused a $100 check with a $1,000 check (Plath, 1991). The client in question turned out to be very valuable, and when questioned about the arrangement, he claimed to have only earned $100. Even after being informed of the gravity of the situation, he refused to adjust his account. Because it is difficult to refund $900, business rules require Chris to report it, which would result in Carol’s firing.
Thinking Before Acting
He has no reason to believe the client has stolen much and does not want to continuously call into question the client’s honesty out of respect. Carol would be fired if she had believed the client, but the actual problem lies in the client’s dishonesty. Finally, Chris must choose between Carol and the customer. The two main parties affected by his choice are Carol and Chris, as both of their careers depend on it. The policies that may have been broken in this instance must be followed by the other bank tellers and managers. It also affects senior employees who disagree with the policies.
Deciding on the Course of Action
A utilitarian viewpoint, like any other, can be applied in this situation to obtain the optimal solution. The virtue ethics notion, which focuses on positive character attributes, might be utilized to solve the dilemma and prevent Carol from being fired (Plath, 1991). Chris should finish verifying Carol’s ledger for any remaining problems. As a new employee, she likely made numerous mistakes, yet the money can still be found. If this is not applicable, Chris should report the shortage. This is what the policy requires, and it should be carried out for the benefit of all branch employees. Additionally, by helping depositors, Chris can discourage other cashiers from seeking to usurp money similarly.
Testing the Decision
The unsavory aspect of this conduct is that it harms Carol, who a dishonest client may have duped. Chris cannot completely rule out the chance that Carol tried to use a manager who wasn’t familiar with the branch and stole the money. In the absence of further analysis of the ledger, Chris appears to be able to trace the origin of this money to one of these two. Although any of these judgments would be challenging, a long-term client is more likely to be trusted than a new employee.
Proceeding with Confidence
Assuming that a proper additional examination does not discover another potential source of errors, Chris should be fair to Carol. To believe in her account of events, after the results of the investigation did not confirm this, would be exceeding the required level of justice. While dismissing an employee who does not deserve it is not ideal, drastic actions must be taken at some point. Punishing employees or contributors who were not involved is not a good idea, which means that she or the client should be held accountable (Weiss, 2021). The proposed solution will incur financial and time expenditures for the bank, but it will help to improve the business’s efficiency and profitability in the long run.
References
Plath, D. (1991). The accidental bank robbery. In Ciulla, J. B., Martin, C., & Solomon, R. C. (Eds.), Honest work: A business ethics reader. (4th ed.). pp. 132–133. Oxford University Press.
Weiss, J. W. (2021). Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach (7th ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.