Organisation Communication-Ethics Essay

Dilemma 1 As the newly appointed personnel director my option would be to follow the company’s procedure of screening the applicants and forwarding the top three to the management for interviews. However before forwarding the top three to the management, I would first confront the president on his discriminatory attitude. This would be necessary since if the applicants just go for interviews with the management, the president’s attitude may lead to all three of them not being selected. Then it will look like the selection process was unsatisfactory. In addition, it is important for the president to be aware of the fact that the three potential employees are all female so that he is not caught unaware. The information that all three applicants are female would be conveyed to him in the confrontational meeting. Confronting him will give an opportunity for bringing out the unethical nature of the president’s attitude. During the confrontation meeting I will attempt to explain to the president that the applicants ought to be selected using the principles of merit, fairness and equality. I will also point out that the management could end up selecting a female applicant even though there was a male applicant since the chances of having three male applicants would be small. In addition confrontation would also help to avoid possible liability for using sex as a determinant in the selection process. This is a contravention of the Civil Rights Act and it is better to prevent it rather than have the company lose large amounts of cash in a court case should the company be sued by any of the three female applicants (Shockley-Zalabak, 2005). Another advantage that confronting the president has is that the president will be aware that decisions will not be made according to his whims and desires especially when they are unethical. This would contribute hopefully to some amount of professional respect where the president sees that I have the interests of the organization and the employees as well at heart. It would also mean that the president would not expect to push me around as far as personnel issues were concerned and rather would leave me to discharge my duties independently while asking for help where necessary. The meeting with the president would remain private and the issue would only be discussed with other members of management if the president refused to change his stance on the issue. Then it would mean that such discriminatory practice would be perpetuated and failure to include other members of management would result in unequal employment opportunities for the employees. In such a situation the appropriate thing to do is to confront the president about his discriminatory posture. This can help to bring about a stop to such discriminatory behavior and also to avoid the legal implications of such discriminatory attitudes when employing. The company could suffer great losses by paying out damages and these could have been avoided. In addition, a company’s policy should be such that they avoid practices that are discriminatory in nature and the company should work towards ensuring that all people regardless of gender are treated equally. This involves availing opportunities equally to all employees regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or race (Caux Round Table, 2006). Confrontation with the president however requires tact and it is best to start with how the company is likely to suffer from discriminatory practices, beginning with the legal implications and their effect on the profitability of the company. Then other factors such as the negative publicity the company would receive from such a court case where discrimination along gender lines has been exposed as a factor in employment and also citing the goodwill of the employees as an issue that would be affected. This is because most employees may side with their colleagues who have been discriminated against or feel like they are the next in line to suffer from a discriminatory practice. Due to the sensitive nature of the meeting it would best be had in privacy with the president. After the president has changed his mind then the selection process can continue as outlined by company policy. Dilemma 2 In the situation above as the personnel liaison I would press the crew member for more information on who was involved or places where the drug use occurred.  I would impress on her the need to give more specific information so that I can act as soon as possible and so as to give me a head start in performing my own investigation. This would be done by explaining to her the danger that the involved crew members and personnel liaison people were putting on her and other members of the crew. This is because by being involved in drug use they compromised their mental alertness when operating machinery which could result in injury to others and also in losses for the company. While attempting to get as much information as possible from the crew member I would also be conducting my own investigations. This would be done discreetly and would involve trips to the production line to unearth evidence of drug use. It would also involve interviews with every crew member to try and find out those who are involved in the drug use. Other personnel liaisons would not be involved in the investigations to prevent those who are involved from pre-empting the investigation process. During the interviews the employees would be made aware of the consequences of drug use with police involvement being the major factor especially if the drugs are found to be illegal drugs. This would most likely cause some of the crew members to crack under the pressure and giving up the necessary information to deal with the drug problems at the plant. If this fails to generate adequate information the crew members and all personnel liaison would be informed of the need for testing due to safety issues and firing or suspension of those found to be using drugs at the plant. In a situation of drug use at manufacturing plant, the person in charge in this case the liaison officer has a role of conducting investigations to find out what truth there is in the crew members allegations and expose all those involved in drug use (Shockley-Zalaback, 2007). Drug use is a criminal offence depending on the drug being used and it has the effect of compromising the quality of work of the users and thus lowering the efficiency of the company. Aside from the negative effect on the profitability of the company, it is also unethical practice to ignore the report of the crew member as it would be akin to condoning drug use in the company. In dealing with the issue it is best to first ensure that there is a handbook that all the employees are aware of and have access to regarding use of drugs at the workplace (People Management, 2007). This means that the employees cannot claim ignorance of company policy regarding drug use at the work place. Holding meetings to draw attention to the problem of drug use is also another means of communicating and citing the disciplinary issues that are associated with drug use. In addition having an intranet that has information on drug use and use of posters, newsletters to communicate company policy in drug misuse at work. In managing the situation it is also necessary that emphasis be on support that the company will offer those with drug dependence problems rather than on disciplinary issues. While this cannot be ignored, it discourages most people from admitting that they have a problem. Also it means that the company may not be meeting its legal obligations in managing those people who have drug use problems. What I would have done is slightly different from what should be done. My approach is more focussed on disciplinary measures rather than supportive measures. As a result it may not be very effective at flushing out all the drug users and some may persist with their problem until it causes danger or injury to others. The approach I took was more disciplinary because it was aimed at reaching those who merely use drugs at the plant irresponsibly. It did not give consideration to those who may have serious problems of managing their drug use, but if identified these would be referred to a rehabilitation center and would retain their jobs as long as they complied with treatment.