Project 3: Leading Ethically and Legally at Home and Abroad

The purpose of this report is to analyse the ethics surrounding the handling of June's employment and promotion using Badaracco's Framework in addition to the

employment legalities that are relevant to the situation.

Badaracco Framework

The Badaracco framework is one of the most valuable frameworks drafted to guide making ethical decisions. The framework provides a guided four questions that guide how to make ethical decisions by choosing right versus right decisions. Coming up with the best decision that has the least negative impact on all the parties and balances the impacts on each party is the Badaracco framework's ultimate goal (Badaracco Jr, 2002). Electropic LLC case also requires the application of legal measures based on fraud cases and employment at will. The legal framework will also be vital in determining the ethical decisions which should be made.

Badaracco Framework: Questions

There are four questions that guide a decision-maker under the Badaracco framework in choosing right vs. right. As a framework for assessing ways to resolve right-versus-right dilemmas, Badaracco recommends four questions (Badaracco Jr, 2002):

1. Which course of action will do the most good and the least harm?

2. Which alternative best serves others' rights, including shareholders' rights?

3. What plan can I live with, which is consistent with basic values and commitments?

4. Which course of action is feasible in the world as it is?

The first question focuses on the consequences of making a particular decision over the other (Badaracco Jr, 2002). The moral decision is the one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The question majors on choosing which of the options is better compared to the other and then choosing the decision that does most good than the other to the people involved (Small & Lew, 2021). There are different people involved when a certain decision is made. The employees themselves, the leadership, and the families of the employees are all implied and affected. Thus, deciding on the case of Electropic LLC would require weighing all the possible options and determining the consequences of each of them.

In the Electropic LLC case, there are two possible choices to make. One is to demote June back to a project manager position, and the second one is to retain her in the position of a senior project manager even without the MBA. If June is demoted, the company will lose her influence and expertise in project management. June has had a Steller performance since she joined the company, and she was considered for the promotion due to her performance. The MBA was not considered when she was being promoted, and thus, she deserved the promotion as a good performer (Electropic LLC. n.d.). By retaining her in the senior project manager's position, Electropic LLC is assured of her performance which has earned the company high revenue. On the other hand, currently, there is a requirement for an MBA for any person who holds the senior project manager position. Retaining her would possibly compromise the company's law on qualifications for the senior project manager's position.

The second important question focuses on the rights of the individuals. It is essential to ask oneself which rights of an individual cannot be violated or respected (Badaracco Jr, 2002). This question is critical in incorporating the rights of every individual. The decision-maker should consider which alternative best serves the interest of the others, including shareholder rights (Schwartz, 2017). This ensures that all the people affected by the given case are satisfied with the decision made and that their morale is maintained high in the company.

In the case of Electropic LLC, Melissa must be considered in making the decision. As one of the employees, she is an important stakeholder whose rights, feelings and opinions must be respected. Despite the performance of Melissa being lower than that of June, she has a right to understand why she was not promoted, yet she was due for a promotion. She had the required qualifications according to the law. The only reason that June beat her is the performance where June had performed better. As a result, it is critical to consider Melissa in making the decision about the company. Considering Melisa and the future of the organization, demoting June would be a better decision. Melissa already knows that June does not have an MBA, which is a requirement for a senior project manager position. It would be almost impossible for Melissa to work well knowing that she had qualified for the promotion. Yet, it was given to a person who was not fully qualified despite being a better performer. The main challenge, in this case, is the fact that the qualifications were not considered when promoting June, and only her performance was considered (Electropic LLC. n.d.). June's seniors are counting on her to improve the company's performance, and thus, they would not be happy to lose her in that position. Retaining her would thus be a better alternative for June's seniors, irrespective of her performance.

The fourth question under the Badaracco framework is the feasibility of the decision (Badaracco Jr, 2002). The Human Resource manager should ask herself which of the decisions is feasible in the world. It is important to involve creativity in making such a decision which requires choosing from two right decisions. It is important to employ creativity to avoid making a decision that would possibly affect others. In choosing an alternative between two right decisions, one should be willing to take the risk of shaking one of the alternatives without posing a threat to the organization's image (Harrison, 2017). This would mean that going by either of the decisions should be creative where the image of the organization is protected.

The law that requires one to have an MBA to hold the position of a senior project manager can be handled with creativity in the case of June. According to June's progression, she was only 12 units away from attaining her MBA when her father got sick. She became the only person who could take care of her family, and thus, it was impossible to continue with her studies (Electropic LLC. n.d.). Since she already has an MBA basic and she can complete her MBA soon if given a chance, it would be more prudent to retain her in her position based on her performance and ensure that she gets her MBA soonest possible. As an employer under the Employment at Will law, the decision to demote June lies sorely with the employer. Making any promotion is also the employer's responsibility, and thus, Melissa may not challenge the decision of the company to promote June.

Badaracco Framework Tests

There are three frameworks under the Badaracco framework that are key in picking the best alternatives between two right decisions. The first test is the newspaper test (Badaracco Jr, 2002). The news that appears on the front page of the newspapers carries a lot of weight, and they have a significant impact on the image of a company or an individual. In choosing the best alternative, one should consider which of the decisions would work best if it was published on the front page of a local newspaper, that is, which of the decisions would have limited negative consequences and maximum positive impacts to the company (Harrison, 2017). Every organization works to maintain its image in society. By making ethical decisions, an organization can maintain positive relationships with the community and all its stakeholders.

The case of Electropic LLC is not an easy one. Suppose it appears on the newspapers that one of the project managers was promoted to the position of a senior project manager without an MBA which is a requirement. In that case, it will not paint a good picture, and the issue of favoring some of the employees over others can quickly rise. On a second note, news that one of the senior project managers has been demoted due to lack of an MBA despite being a top performer would still be an issue since the company had already promoted her. However, since June only has a few units to complete her MBA program, it would be better to maintain her and argue that she is pursuing her MBA, and thus, based on her performance, she qualified for a promotion into the senior project manager.

The second test is the advice to walk a mile in the other person’s shoes or the golden rule, do unto others (Badaracco Jr, 2002). It is always essential to use the golden rule and do unto others what one could be comfortable if done to them or one of their family members. It is crucial to consider the rights and the interests of others when deciding between two right alternatives. By looking at what interests the other party has, it is easy to fulfill their wishes and maintain the company's image at bay. Walking in the shoes of others can easily help when making these types of decisions.

Nobody would wish to be demoted after being promoted to a senior position. Everyone would do their best to ensure that they are highly productive to win the management and secure a promotion. Once promoted, a person works to do their best to gain another promotion or maintain their new position. June depends on her job for her livelihood. Demoting June would get her a step back in life which is not in the interest of any person in her position. Since no one wants to be demoted, applying the golden rule would have June maintain her current position as the senior project manager and compromise the MBA requirement that she can still acquire after a short period if she finalizes her MBA program completing the remaining twelve units. Retaining June in her senior project manager's position is thus a better decision that passes the second test under the Badaracco framework.

The third test to take before finalizing the decision is the Obituary or best friend test (Badaracco Jr, 2002). It is essential to look at a decision from a broad perspective and the relationship between the decision-maker and the person implied by the decision (Small & Lew, 2021). A decision should always be made to strengthen the relationship between the party making the decision and the party implied by the decision. It is also essential to look at the decision from a long-term impact on the company's productivity. Many people are looking up to the human resource department for similar decisions. In the future, they would consider the human resource personnel's recent decisions as a framework for their future decisions.

By considering the relationship between the company and June, retaining her would be a better decision. June has been very productive, and her productivity has brought the company great fortune. There has been an increase in revenue from her performance, and the company may not want to lose such expertise. If demoted, June can use the employment-at-will law and terminate the contract. This would be a significant blow to Electropic LLC since replacing such an employee is not easy for any organization.

Additionally, the positive relationship between June and the organization would not be easy to maintain even if June does not terminate her contract after being demoted. Demoting June would bring up the issue of the organization caring less about the employees. Demoting a person when there are other alternatives shows that you do not care about their feelings or the consequences of the decision. As a result, it would be much better to retain June in her current position as a senior project manager of Electropic LLC.

Ethical Analysis

June Pyle lied on her resume 10 years ago by claiming that she completed her MBA, and she must have got preference over other candidates for the post of project manager at Electropic LLC. What she did is ethically wrong. However, June has a history of stellar performance and was promoted not because of her MBA but because of her consistently exemplary work. June has received excellent performance evaluations during her time at Electropic LLC, and her leadership has led to increased revenue and positive press for the company. Her record of success is what led to her promotion.

However, since other senior project managers do not have the MBA qualification, ethically, the HR department should retain June in her position based on her qualification and have her complete her MBA program. Yes, she has faked a qualification. As mentioned above, the qualification was not the benchmark at that time, and it was introduced later.

Legal Analysis

June Pyle’s employment status is “at-will.” Employment at will is a doctrine of common law that allows either the employee or the employer to terminate an employment relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without notice, and even for a morally reprehensible reason, so long as the ending of the relationship does not fall into an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine (Employment at Will, n.d.). The exceptions to employment at will include express contract, implied contract; promissory estoppel; public policy violations; and good faith and fair dealing. Also, At-will employees should be particularly aware that résumé fraud provides a justifiable basis for termination that may undermine otherwise legitimate arguments for wrongful discharge (or other exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine). Because June’s employment status is at-will, her resume fraud gives the company a justifiable reason to terminate her employment. Even if the employment-at-will exceptions listed above is considered, she still might be terminated under a “just cause” provision. Just cause refers to conduct that is of such a serious nature or extent that it essentially breaks the employment relationship (Just cause, 2020). The resume fraud pertains to the false credentials she provided on her resume as having achieved her MBA degree, when that is not, in fact, the case. Electropic LLC has the right to sue June for misrepresentation and may even fire her, but it is not of any help to the company as she is hardworking.

Recommendation

Considering the Badaracco framework and going through the questions and tests and considering the fraud and employment-at-will laws, the human resource department should retain June in her current position as a senior project manager. To avoid any conflict, the department should give June an ultimatum to complete her remaining units to own an MBA as per the requirements. The time granted to June should ensure that she resumes her studies immediately to have her as an ongoing student. Additionally, June should also be asked to prove her admission into the MBA program and evidence that she only has the twelve units remain to be awarded the MBA certificate. This will serve as proof that she will earn her MBA within the stipulated time.

References