1. a.This case has a strong intensity due to the fact that other employees can be effected, not only Kate and John. Also, the integrity of Kate and John and the decisions they make at work is affected. Any promotions would be questioned and could harm morale and deteriorate the culture of their office. When there were disagreements on the intensity level of the case, the members of the feeling that there was greater intensity than others, expressed why they believed the intensity rating should be higher.
b.The individual factor at play in this scenario is locus of control. Kate feels pressure to go along with John’s invitations to spend more time together in more casual situations. She feels like she is being controlled by external factors. …show more content…
In response to the questions posed for this case, we felt Kate and John could not have a normal productive working relationship at this point. We felt that Kate should look to apply for a position in another department within the company or find another job. We did not feel that she would get far with claiming sexual harassment. Ethically she had put her own integrity in question by allowing John in her home and by spending time with John in a non-work related capacity. Kate could appear to have been trying to develop a relationship with John to get the promotion and when he did not give it to her she retaliated. I agreed with this plan. Unfortunately, Kate would have to take this as a learning experience and maintain better physical boundaries with co-workers, especially those that are her superiors.
2. a. We discussed this case until a consensus was reached. The largest debate was around whether or not Kate had a basis for a sexual harassment lawsuit or if she could have approached human resources to complain about John at this …show more content…
The point we most disagreed upon was Kate’s decision to go to the Symphony and have John in her house for coffee. I agreed that Kate had behaved unethically in both situations. I pointed out a personal example to illustrate my point; specifically, that I had never had any boss over to my house. There was not a need for it. In particular, I would not have allowed a superior that I knew had an interest in dating me personal access to me. One member stated who would say not to going to the Symphony. My response to that was someone that did not want to give the wrong impression and protect their position in the relationship as business only.
c. I had thought of Kate as leading John on because she told him she was not interested in dating him, until several of the men in the group expressed that her words and actions did not match. This gave John mixed signals and could have led him to believe she may have been interested. At the very least, he would have realized that he could manipulate the situation to spend time with her because she allowed it.
d. I believe in this case the team thought mostly of Kate and the outcome for her. By allowing John to remain with the company, un-checked, he may continue to abuse his position of power. We did feel like Kate could have appeared poorly if she spoke to human resources and her reputation in the company could have been harmed. We did not think about corporate social
b.The individual factor at play in this scenario is locus of control. Kate feels pressure to go along with John’s invitations to spend more time together in more casual situations. She feels like she is being controlled by external factors. …show more content…
In response to the questions posed for this case, we felt Kate and John could not have a normal productive working relationship at this point. We felt that Kate should look to apply for a position in another department within the company or find another job. We did not feel that she would get far with claiming sexual harassment. Ethically she had put her own integrity in question by allowing John in her home and by spending time with John in a non-work related capacity. Kate could appear to have been trying to develop a relationship with John to get the promotion and when he did not give it to her she retaliated. I agreed with this plan. Unfortunately, Kate would have to take this as a learning experience and maintain better physical boundaries with co-workers, especially those that are her superiors.
2. a. We discussed this case until a consensus was reached. The largest debate was around whether or not Kate had a basis for a sexual harassment lawsuit or if she could have approached human resources to complain about John at this …show more content…
The point we most disagreed upon was Kate’s decision to go to the Symphony and have John in her house for coffee. I agreed that Kate had behaved unethically in both situations. I pointed out a personal example to illustrate my point; specifically, that I had never had any boss over to my house. There was not a need for it. In particular, I would not have allowed a superior that I knew had an interest in dating me personal access to me. One member stated who would say not to going to the Symphony. My response to that was someone that did not want to give the wrong impression and protect their position in the relationship as business only.
c. I had thought of Kate as leading John on because she told him she was not interested in dating him, until several of the men in the group expressed that her words and actions did not match. This gave John mixed signals and could have led him to believe she may have been interested. At the very least, he would have realized that he could manipulate the situation to spend time with her because she allowed it.
d. I believe in this case the team thought mostly of Kate and the outcome for her. By allowing John to remain with the company, un-checked, he may continue to abuse his position of power. We did feel like Kate could have appeared poorly if she spoke to human resources and her reputation in the company could have been harmed. We did not think about corporate social