Caring and Doing: What characterizes a well-lived life in our organizations and society?

Wade Westwood

ORGL 610 Communication & Leadership Ethics

Gonzaga University

Dr. NichOLAS Whittington

17 October 2021

Ethical Dilemma

David had worked for me for three months in Utah when he let me know that he needed to return to Nigeria to bury his father. David said that because his dad had multiple wives and many children, he would need 2 weeks for the burial and to settle his father’s estate. 

Due to David’s short tenure at the company, he had only accrued enough paid time off to cover one week of his absence. Per company policy, he would have to be unpaid for the remaining week of his absence. David asked if it was possible to work remotely to help mitigate the week of unpaid work, so team members identified what work of theirs could be done remotely and that was assigned to David. It wasn’t a full 40 hours, but it would help. 

David left for Africa, and, as expected, we did not hear anything for the first week. However, the next week, as the remote assignments became due, we still did not hear from David. My team and I stayed late to cover the assignments. The team was sympathetic for David during his time of mourning and concerned for his well-being since he was traveling to Nigeria in the middle of a pandemic.

At the start of the third week, David did not show up at work. I was concerned for the work that would not get done, but more importantly for David’s well-being. I reached out daily via phone and email, and team members reached out via social media channels to check on David, but no response was ever received. We did not know what communication infrastructure was available to David in Africa, so we carried on. Again, myself and the team worked overtime to cover David’s assignments. I had let Human Resources know so they could reach out to any contacts he had entered into our HR system, but they too heard nothing. I was advised by our HR department that David was considered a no call, no show per company policy and we could proceed with termination. I elected not to proceed with termination as I was more concerned for David’s well-being at the time. 

By the fourth week, David was still absent, and while we were concerned about David’s well-being, the frustration was rising due to the lack of communication and the increased workload. Daily calls and emails continued to be unreturned. On Thursday of the fourth week, I received a phone call from someone in Houston who was only able to tell me that David would be in Nigeria longer than he initially thought. They were unable to provide any other information or a way of contacting David.  

In week six, the team’s frustration was mounting. I was unable to post a new requisition because if David returned we would be overstaffed. Daily attempts to communicate with David or the phone number from Houston had gone un-returned. We did not know if our team member was alive, if he had found another job, or if he intended to re-join the team at some point. I asked HR to proceed with termination, and at the behest of our legal department they asked for documentation of my attempts to reach out to David so far, which I provided. 

At the start of the seventh week, HR, at my behest, sent an official letter to David’s address stating that if we did not hear from him by the end of the week, he would be terminated. I received David’s letter of resignation via email that Thursday. His company laptop and cell phone were never returned. 

It was my decision to send the official letter to David’s address and to proceed with termination. Some of the facts that I considered when making this decision were that David was not a great communicator even when on site at his job, David had moved across the country to join our team, we needed the help, the communication infrastructure that David had at his disposal in Nigeria was unknown, David was an American working for an American company, David was navigating Nigerian culture for the burial and estate settlement, David did have a company cell phone and laptop, and David was part of a larger team that was having to work overtime to cover his absence. 

Power and Culture

I held legitimate power over David as his manager. “Legitimate power resides in the position” (Johnson, p.122). I work at a major defense contractor, and the culture is derived from the military. There is a clear chain of command, and people are expected to escalate problems to their manager first. Similarly, managers are given the power to solve problems and the culture expects them to solve problems or escalate higher, if necessary. In this case, I, as the manager, had the power to report David’s absence and also had the power to influence the outcome of the situation with David. There is a no-call, no-show policy and the human resources department was able to wield coercive power if I chose to let them. “Coercive power is based on penalties or punishments” (Johnson, p.122), but the legitimate power of my position was able to influence whether or not the policy is enforced. In this instance, I first chose to not proceed with termination because of the extraordinary circumstances of David’s absence. “Selecting the appropriate tactic is one of the most important choices we make when exerting influence. Ethical considerations should always play a central role in this determination” (Johnson, p.133).

The Evolution of Conflict

Over the course of weeks, me and the engineering department had gone from sympathetic and concerned to frustrated and ready to terminate David. The human resources department was at first ready to follow the no-call, no-show policy of the company, and legal was (as always) concerned with making sure the company couldn’t be sued for our actions or even the perception of our actions. 

“Conflict experts Joyce Hocker and William Wilmot define conflict as ‘an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals’” (Johnson, p.156). In the situation of David’s absence, there were five parties involved and the tensions among the parties were dynamic. Conflict existed between David and me, me and the engineering team, me and the human resources department, and the human resources department and the legal department.

The conflict between David and me was over the scarce resource of David’s time and perceived incompatible goals. As his manager, I initially responded to the conflict by accommodating David’s need for time during his period of mourning. “The accommodating style reflects low concern for self and rich concern for others. Accommodators give in while helping other parties reach their goals” (Johnson, p.160).

At first word of David’s loss, the engineering team collaborated with David to give him the time that he needed off while also providing him pieces of their workload that David could complete remotely instead of going unpaid. “The collaborative style reflects a high degree of concern for both the self and others. Collaborators listen actively, stay focused on the issues, and hope to reach solutions that meet the needs of both sides” (Johnson, p. 160). However, as the weeks progressed and David did not deliver his portion of the remote workload, tension started to rise between David and the engineering team. Since David was not present and thus unable to be held accountable for the conflict of which he was perhaps unknowingly a part, the tension manifested itself between the engineering team and me, their manager.

In light of the engineering team working extended hours to cover for David and the tension it was causing, my accommodating style transformed into a competing style. “The competing style puts the needs of self first with little concern for the other side. Competitors are aggressive and focused on meeting their own needs, often at the expense of other parties” (Johnson, p. 160). The team needed another member to handle the daily work load, and David’s extended absence and lack of communication forced me to start viewing the best resolution as one where David was terminated and a new team member brought on in his place.

The conflict between me and HR was over the perceived incompatible goal of upholding company policy. At first word of David’s extended and unplanned absence, the human resources department wanted to proceed with termination due to the company’s three day no-call, no-show policy. I recommended that we wait due to the  extraordinary circumstances of the situation, and the human resources department acquiesced.

 Finally, the conflict between the human resources department and the legal team stemmed from the human resources department perceiving the legal department as interfering with executing company policy. The legal team was concerned that there would not be enough formal documentation to carry out the no-call, no-show policy, or that the court of public opinion could potentially rule in favor of David. If litigation ensued and it was discovered that David was sick with COVID-19 in a Nigerian hospital with no way to reach out, the company’s image could be damaged, putting the legitimacy of the company’s policies and actions in question. “Legitimacy is necessary for the organization’s long-term survival. To maintain legitima­cy, organizations must continually argue that they are functioning in a manner that is consistent with larger, socially defined norms of appropri­ate conduct” (Seeger, p.2). 


Alternative Frames 

There were five entities in this situation: David, me, the engineering department, the human resources department and our company’s legal team. 

My framework, and that of my team members, probably was the most dynamic. At first, we felt compassion, sympathy and a desire to help a teammate in his time of need. However, when the team felt that our goodwill was not being reciprocated or even recognized with a message from David, our frameworks shifted. When we had all been consistently and negatively impacted, we were ready to stop spending energy on supporting David and instead wanted to work to find a new teammate.

David’s lack of communication with me or other agents of the company effectively yielded whatever power he may have had as an employee, so we were left to assume what he was thinking or feeling. David must have been feeling overwhelmed dealing with the loss of his father while navigating the Nigerian legal system and culture in order to attend to his father’s burial. David would likely argue that grace in such an extraordinary situation should be granted because of the state of Nigerian infrastructure, the cultural hurdles he was facing, and the grief of losing his father. These elements were working against David and created a situation where it was difficult if not impossible for him to communicate. 

The human resources department likely viewed David as one of 80,000, and thus would argue that the no-call, no-show policy should be enforced in order to create parity across such a large organization.

The legal team would argue that David had only verbally agreed to an absence and a return date with his manager, and that there was no formal documentation. This could lead to a “he said, she said” situation that could potentially result in a company liability or damage how the company is perceived by the public. 

What Could Change

To alleviate the ethical dilemma caused by David’s situation, organizational improvements can be and were made.

The no-call, no-show policy from the human resources department exists to set a clear expectation for employees and to provide a basis for equal treatment of employees. I think managers should have the ability to not terminate an employee after three days, but the policy should be revised to state next steps in these circumstances. Next steps could include documenting the reason for not terminating and setting a clear timeline should the situation not be resolved. If the new timeline was documented and communicated to affected parties, the policy could still serve its original intent, but with more clear instructions on how to proceed in unusual circumstances.

David’s absence shed a light on some shortfalls within my standard work as a manager and within our department’s existing stated values and rituals. I asked what I could do to improve our community of memory that would ultimately shape our ethical dilemmas going forward. “The community of memory of an organization is a sense of organization conscience, retaining what a given organization deems as good” (Arnett et al., p 139).

The conflict between the legal team and the human resources department arose due to the lack of formal documentation around David’s absence. When was he travelling? What day exactly was he expected back on site? I could have helped to avoid this conflict by formally documenting my expectations for David’s absence, rather than only having a conversation with him. To rectify this, we implemented a department Paid Time Off policy that requires team members to enter their planned PTO into Microsoft Outlook and, as their manager, I can either accept the PTO or decline and have a discussion about why the PTO was not approved. 

The engineering team was told in a weekly staff meeting that David would not be a part of our organization going forward, and the team took the opportunity to discuss the tensions that can exist among department members, not all of which were caused by David’s absence. We took advantage of the sharing and relative openness to draft the rules for how our team members would conduct themselves and interact with each other within the department and outside of the department. This created an opportunity for myself and the team members to change our formal and informal cultural components. “Formal cultural components… are officially acknowledged and recorded. Informal components include language, norms, rituals and stories. These features are not part of the organization’s official record. (Johnson, pp. 260-261). 

The ultimate purpose of the PTO calendar, the standard work for taking time off, and the codifying of our department’s individual and collective behavior was to refresh the community of memory so that the department becomes more autonomous and relies less on the decision making of any one manager or outside actor. “Reduce your reliance on authority, reward, and coercion by developing your skills and knowledge while modeling the behaviors you want to see in others. Coercion should be employed only as a last resort” (Johnson, p. 125).

References:

Arnett, R. C., Fritz, J. M. H., & McManus, L. M. B. (2017). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Kendall Hunt. ISBN 978-1-5249-3633-4 . 

Johnson, C. E. (2019). Organizational ethics: A practical approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.  ISBN 978-1-5063-6175-8

Seeger, M. W. (1997). Ethics and organizational communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.