Three Ethical Dilemmas in the Columns Besieged case
The Digital Solutions company was in a difficult ethical dilemma situation with Harold Davis because like many start-up companies, they did not have the experience in Human Resource Management or a Human Resource department to deal with Harold’s unethical personal motives, like when he suggested “extra aid” to Jordan and Mark, in their respective departments. Harold’s understanding of the company’s technical-solution challenges and business goals gave him the opportunity to use his collaboration to gain extra responsibilities, which resulted in promotions. (Columns Besieged: Rogue Employee or Managerial Void, pg. 126). One can understand Harold’s suggestions as positive to move departments’ …show more content…
Mark became uncomfortable with the change because it would impact the latter phases of the project’s design, milestones and consequently the business objective. Upon investigating how the alteration took place, Mark learned that Harold was the decision maker in an effort to put his own personal touch in the software (Columns Besieged: Rogue Employee or Managerial Void, pg. 132). Harold’s decision to make a change in the software without his lead-producers approval is of technical ineptitude as he clearly was not aware, misunderstood, or simply disregarded the organizational values and goal objectives. We can determine that his decision on this matter was influenced by his personal, professional and organization values, along with role conflicts that led him to that unethical choice of views, values and goals as charted in Figure 2 Role Episodic Models of Ethical Dilemma in HRM (KC Wooten / Human Resource Management Review II, 2001, 159 – 175). With this behavior, Harold, violated two code provisions of the HRM code of ethics. He failed in Professional Responsibility with lack of respect and credibility, displayed no appreciation for coworkers as human beings, and misled coworker and decision makers. He also showed inadequate Ethical Leadership by failing as role model, did …show more content…
Although Harold clearly caused the last-minute extra tasks with his decision to modify the software, he leveraged the team’s comments of extra work, as complaints to instigate a staff rebellion against Mark for the work Mark mandated last minute. Harold used the team’s rising concern with Mark’s ability to effectively lead the team to the final product development stages to meet the company’s objectives. This was certainly an act of conspiracy on Harold’s part to deceive the team and the founding members of the company in order to achieve his own professional agenda. We can again view his decision was influenced by his personal values, organizational management practice, and role multiplicity conflict, whch took him yet to another level of misrepresentation and collusion as showed in Figure 2 Role Episodic Models of Ethical Dilemma in HRM (KC Wooten / Human Resource Management Review II, 2001, 159 – 175). In this ethical dilemma conflict, he disregarded the Code of Ethics in several ways. The Ethical Leadership again was violated, but just as important, he breached the Fairness and Justice, and Conflict of Interest. With Fairness and Justice,
The Digital Solutions company was in a difficult ethical dilemma situation with Harold Davis because like many start-up companies, they did not have the experience in Human Resource Management or a Human Resource department to deal with Harold’s unethical personal motives, like when he suggested “extra aid” to Jordan and Mark, in their respective departments. Harold’s understanding of the company’s technical-solution challenges and business goals gave him the opportunity to use his collaboration to gain extra responsibilities, which resulted in promotions. (Columns Besieged: Rogue Employee or Managerial Void, pg. 126). One can understand Harold’s suggestions as positive to move departments’ …show more content…
Mark became uncomfortable with the change because it would impact the latter phases of the project’s design, milestones and consequently the business objective. Upon investigating how the alteration took place, Mark learned that Harold was the decision maker in an effort to put his own personal touch in the software (Columns Besieged: Rogue Employee or Managerial Void, pg. 132). Harold’s decision to make a change in the software without his lead-producers approval is of technical ineptitude as he clearly was not aware, misunderstood, or simply disregarded the organizational values and goal objectives. We can determine that his decision on this matter was influenced by his personal, professional and organization values, along with role conflicts that led him to that unethical choice of views, values and goals as charted in Figure 2 Role Episodic Models of Ethical Dilemma in HRM (KC Wooten / Human Resource Management Review II, 2001, 159 – 175). With this behavior, Harold, violated two code provisions of the HRM code of ethics. He failed in Professional Responsibility with lack of respect and credibility, displayed no appreciation for coworkers as human beings, and misled coworker and decision makers. He also showed inadequate Ethical Leadership by failing as role model, did …show more content…
Although Harold clearly caused the last-minute extra tasks with his decision to modify the software, he leveraged the team’s comments of extra work, as complaints to instigate a staff rebellion against Mark for the work Mark mandated last minute. Harold used the team’s rising concern with Mark’s ability to effectively lead the team to the final product development stages to meet the company’s objectives. This was certainly an act of conspiracy on Harold’s part to deceive the team and the founding members of the company in order to achieve his own professional agenda. We can again view his decision was influenced by his personal values, organizational management practice, and role multiplicity conflict, whch took him yet to another level of misrepresentation and collusion as showed in Figure 2 Role Episodic Models of Ethical Dilemma in HRM (KC Wooten / Human Resource Management Review II, 2001, 159 – 175). In this ethical dilemma conflict, he disregarded the Code of Ethics in several ways. The Ethical Leadership again was violated, but just as important, he breached the Fairness and Justice, and Conflict of Interest. With Fairness and Justice,