Please give a detailed response to the following dilemma. Give your reasons.
One day, you may be called upon to fire one of your three equally qualified assistants in order to save your department money.
- Do you fire the one with the least experience, but whom you personally recruited away from his previous job, with a promise that ditching to his other job would be good for his career?
- Do you fire the one who brought in the least money this year, but who just had a baby with a serious medical condition?
- Do you fire the one who is hardest to get along with, but who has been with the company for thirty-five years and plans to retire in 18 months?
28 comments:
You fire person B. You do this because of the money. It may seem wrong to fire this person based on their personal situation, but it is the most beneficial for the company. But when you are having an issue within a company, you do what solves that specific issue. In this scenario, it is financial therefore you fire the person that financially hurts the company most. Person B, you’re fired.
Of the three possible co-workers to be fired. I would fire the second person, the single mom. Even though she has a sick new baby, my company doesn't benefit from her work. My job is to fire one of the people whom is holding my company back. Hopefully since I will be firing the single mom for doing such bad work, that means that the new lady I personally hired will work harder to meet our standards or else she too will be fired. The man who will retire in 18 months is safe because although I don't personally like him, he is the strongest worker. I need to stay professional in my position and not let outside factors inhibit my decision, so that my company can succeed.
The final goal is to sustain the company’s economic condition, to save money.
C would definitely benefit the situation of the company. C is the one that can help the company to sustain its economic.
B although brought the least money, but she is in a special situation. Based on the consideration of humanity and ethics, B needs the job more than anyone else in this situation.
A is the one I will choose to fire. Although it was me who get him into the company, but according to the current situation of the company, private emotion is way less important than the sustainability of the company. A is new to his job here and is not experienced enough to help the company out in this situation. In order to solve this ethical dilemma, a long-term consideration is more acceptable than a short-term action. The final goal should be reached through such actions.
I would fire employee B because she is the least beneficial to the company. Not only will she be distracted and preoccupied with her baby, but she also brought in the least amount of business last year. She will not be able to fully commit to the company, unlike employees A and C. The point of a business is to be successful. The business can’t be successful with an employee that doesn’t bring in enough business and is distracted while dealing with the company. Employee C can teach employee A how to do things before employee C retires so that the company can still be successful.
I would fire the person B. first, she brought in the least amount of money, and the company has to save money to be in better financial condition. The company does not have to afford for the least effective worker no matter how hard situation she is in. She can definitely get some money to afford through temporary loan form banks or part time jobs. Second, since the person C will retire in 18 months anyways, the company is going to be required to charge a new worker back, and then it can take the person B back after 18 months if she is still willing to. And third, after 18 months, the company will be in in better financial condition, and the person A, who was the least experienced, will be more accustomed to his job through working for 18 more months to provide more effective amount of money from his work.
If required to fire one of the employees, I would fire person C. Employee C is planning to leave the company within the next 18 months. Since the individual has worked for the company for 35 years, they likely have a secure pension and retirement plan. It is not likely that working for 36 and a half years would increase the benefits of their pension either. This would also be an opportunity to look for someone who gets along with the entire team and compliments the working style of others. Eliminating person C would make the working environment better for others because person C is difficult to work with.
I would fire person B. I would fire her, because I am supposed to look after the good of the company. All I should want is success, but person B did not contribute to success – she brought in the least amount of money. As for the fact that she had a baby, I should not pay attention to it. I’m not supposed to be her friend who she can count on to keep her employed and help support her and her baby. My responsibility should be to look after the good of the company, not the good of person B’s baby. I want to keep the most productive employees.
If I would be in charged to fire an employee of the company where I work I will chose the second lady. The “A” lady, although she is the least experience, you took her out of her last job she had and filled her with ideas and dreams for her future. Also, as years pass, people gain experience, so she might be a great teacher in a couple of years. The person number 3, even though you do not get along with him that is not a reason to fire someone, he is a great teacher, has been in the school for 35 years and is about to retire. In other words, the third person just has 18 more months in the school. On the other hand, the person number 2 is the one that has brought the least amount of money to the corporation. Even if she is having a baby with serious medical conditions I will fire her, but giving her a good recommendation or a job before she leaves so that she can have income to maintain her baby.
I will fire C instead of A and B because A and B are matters of morality as opposed to C. I cannot fire A because I personally recruited him and led her to quit her previous job, promising that my company will serve her better in her future career. To violate this promise between her and me by firing her would be to provide an opportunity for her to sue me. Furthermore, because I personally recruited this person, I have a trust in his ability to bring profits to my company. Therefore, I know that this person will perform outstandingly well after time and experiences. Even though B brought in the least money this year, I will keep the woman who just had a baby with a serious medical condition because not only firing her would be considered morally wrong, but also it will harm the company’s reputation; therefore the company may be in a worse condition financially because consumers may get bad impression on my company. In addition, I must not assess her ability based on her performance this year. She might have brought in more money than anybody else the previous year or may do so in the future. I will fire C because he might be the cause of the company’s financial crisis. Because he is the hardest person to get along with and one of the oldest employees of the company, many others in the company may feel uncomfortable working with him and therefore perform worse than they would with a young and innovative worker. In addition, just because he plans to retire in 18 months, it does not mean that he will retire in 18 months. He may want to change his mind to stay longer when it comes to the end of his career. Unlike the other two employees A and B, I have no moral issue with C. Therefore, I will fire C.
1. A woman who has a baby with serious medical need cannot fully focus on the job. I understand that she needs money for the kid, but she still has surety from some social programs… She still can get money from the insurance that she regularly paid in the past.
2. The first person has a better future and character that easy to learn new things as a new teacher. And she has no any way to sustain her financial needs. Meanwhile, we don’t need to pay her that much (at least, it will be less than the one who has a kid.)As the one, who in charge this thing, I consider the future and financial problems. Therefore, we should not fire her.
3. It’s no way for a school to fire person who has been working here for 35 years. She will not get any job and have no chance to maintain her life. Because, if she is fired, she cannot get money from Culver as retirement pension. In the meantime, she teaches well. She can teach new teachers to get better.
I believe that option C, the man who is the hardest to get along with, has been here for thirty-five years, and plans to retire in eighteen months, should be the one that is fired. A big part of this reason is because he will be retiring in eighteen months, it doesn’t make sense to me to fire someone else, and then in eighteen months have to rehire for this position again. Another reason is because he is hard to get along with, this makes working with him more difficult, and then it is harder to complete tasks that involve working with each other. Also firing options A or B go against my morals. These are the reasons why I believe option C should be fired.
Considering B’s least contribution to the company, despite her personal issues, the company needs to fire her due to the limited budget.
Defending reasons for A and C:
Considering the short amount of time A has stayed in the company (despite the fact that she was recruited), the company has the responsibility to observe her full potential.
Considering C’s significant contributions to the company, it seems very unreasonable and irresponsible to fire her after she spent more than half of her lifetime for the company. Despite C's remaining time in the company, the company is fully responsible for her job until she retires.
I would personally fire C. First reason is that I chose A knowing that she could bring something that our business did not have, why else would I tell her to quit her previous job if I knew she would not be amazing in this business? I did not fire B, because even though she is not good at bringing about business it would be completely unethical to fire a woman whose child have severe medical issues. C should be fired because for one, she is going to retire anyway it is about time she got on her way (Leaving 8 months earlier is not something that be too hard to handle). C is also good about bringing business but her attitude can sometimes to work with her and this attitude can dramatically affect the way other workers perform. This can cause a drop in the amount of money our business is getting. This cannot be allowed to continue because money is number one in business.
I would fire Employee B.
• Due to the amount of time that employee B would be taking off the company would basically be working with a man down.
• Employee B could find a different job that is a little less time consuming, therefor she could spend more time with her new born baby.
• Having a new born baby employee B will not have the time to spend on balancing work and her family. More than likely Employing B would choose her baby overwork. Employee B would be tired physically and mentally.
• The money that the company is spending on Employee B while she is away on maternity leave, someone else could actually be working and helping out the company.
• With worker A & B the company wouldn’t have to worry about filling in spots for the long period of time that employee B would be gone. The Company would be thriving with the hard work form the hard working employees.
• With Employee C retiring the company could hire someone that would work well with Employee A.
I will fire the person who is the hardest to get only with. Even though he stayed with the company for 35 years, it does not indicates anything about whether he makes great amounts of money for the company or if he has other great values other than bringing in money to the company. Also, since the question states that he is the person who is the hardest to get along with, which indicates he will have negative impact on the company's teamwork.
Another way I look at the question is from the perspective of why to keep the other two workers. For worker A, if he has the least experiences but was still personally recruited by me, it either reveals that this person is important to me personally or this person is a valuable worker for the company to have.
Persons indicating they would choose option C to fire:
This choice, although it may seem like the right option, is not. Employee C is one of the hardest working and best employees that the business has and to fire someone with such drive and benefits to the company is just non-sense. Also, it may seem an easy person to fire because the employee is hardest to get along with but in the world of business it doesn’t matter who likes who. Making money is what matters and that goes for any business and when a business has a great employee one must keep them for as long as possible and hope to have many more. Although this employee is retiring in a year and a half it is more than enough time to sustain the financial needs of the company as well as recruit other well qualified and experienced people while the employee continues to make profit for the company. Also, this way when a new employee is brought in I will not have to fire anyone and may even re-hire the employee being fired.
Persons indicating they would choose option A to fire:
Although people may believe that B cannot be fired due to her situation and its unethicalness, it does not have to be because of that. In a working environment there is a limitation of work life and home life and if the employee is notably bringing in the least amount of money it is acceptable to fire the employee when making budget cuts. For a business to perform the best the employees must be the best and employee A is performing at a higher level than others (employee B) making it clear that employee A is not the correct choice in firing.
I disagree with Beau. To prove my statement, I want to compare Worker B with Worker C from the perspective of saving money for the company.
To begin with, even though the C worker has been with the company for 35 years, it does not indicate anything about whether he is a valuable worker or not. Maybe he makes the greatest amount of money or maybe he makes second the last amount of money. We do not know. However, what we do know about him is that he is the hardest person to get along with. He may cause other members of the company to have negative emotions and have a lower working efficiency. As a result, he will make the company to lose some money. Another piece of information we know about Worker C through the scenario is that he will retire in 18 month. By using common sense, we can know that he is at least 60 years old. Hence, he might needs money from the company to take care of his health. Therefore, we cannot make the conclusion that fire Worker B will save the company more money.
I disagree with Xin. We only know that Worker A is the person with least experiences and was personally recruited by department chair. However, less experience does not indicate Worker A is less capable than Worker C. We do not know if Worker C is a good worker because the scenario only mentions that Worker C has been with the company for 35 years. Abundant experiences do not equal good ability. Also, we cannot make the assumption that the department chair hired Worker A only because of personal emotions. There are possibilities that the department chair hired Worker A because he thinks Worker A has potential to be a valuable worker for the company.
There was a suggestion given not to fire B because it is unethical and irresponsible to fire someone who is going through a hardship. However, the company is also going through hardship due to the low profit. If a company has to fire one of its employees because the employees are not making enough money, what would be the criteria for the judgement? Would B not be considered unethical and irresponsible for being one of the reaons for company's hardship?
It would rather make ME irresponsible and unethical to fire otheres instead of B, because one of the employees is in the stage of learning and one of the employees largely contributed to the company's growth.
It is the company's responsibility to observe the full potential of A and secure C's job.
In response to those firing person B:
Employee B is the one brining in the least amount of money, but is also experiencing a difficult home life situation. It was posed that this individual should be fired because of the current financial status. It is possible that she brought in the least amount of money because she recently had a baby. Most women do not work for the whole duration of pregnancy. It says she brought in the least amount this year, but never mentions more than this year. She might have only worked seven to eight months out of the year. The information never states how much money she has made in previous years. This employee could be a top producer and an irreplaceable asset to the company.
In response to those firing person A:
Clearly person A was recruited to the company for a specific reason. In the business world, few people are indispensable, but A was heavily recruited to join the company. This employee may have the least experience because he or she may be fresh out of college or graduate school. Companies need people who see the world differently. A young employee has an innovative perspective compared to an individual who has been doing the same thing for 35 years. The company is in financial trouble. Obviously what the company has been doing isn’t working. Change is needed and it is possible person A was recruited to be that change.
The reason why firing person A is wrong is because you gave her your word. She quit her other job, to come and work for you, she also has great potential and could possibly make the company lots of money. It would be a bad idea to fire her, before you can see what she actually can do. It would also show other possible employers to not trust you, or believe your word, if you ever offered them a job, because they might think you will fire them as well.
I also do not agree with firing person B. Yes she hasn’t made as much money this year as others, but that is because she has been pregnant, after the baby gets better, she will become a better worker again and possibly bring in lots of money in the future. I also feel like it is morally wrong to fire person B because of her child’s illness. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself after I have done so. Also by firing her it would just cause more stress on her and the baby. She would have to go through the effort of having to find a new job, while trying to support her baby, and take care of it. I don’t believe it would be ethically correct to let her go.
In this situation, the first thing we have to care is who will build a better financial condition for the company. And the person who is the least helpful and effective is the person B. For those of who chose either A or C, I argue that C is the most beneficial person in these three because, for the company trying to save more money, the person who brings the largest amount of money will be the most needed person. Moreover, since I am not sure about the person A yet, I can assume that she may have potential to bring more money for the company; also, there should be the reason for me to recruit her from her previous company. However,the person B is the person who brings in the least amount of money which cannot even reach the average.
When deciding who to fire, I feel that some of my classmates failed to keep their "job" professional vs personal. The person that needed to be fired was person B because she brought in the least amount of money. I feel the reason that my classmates decided to keep her was because she was a single mom who recently had a sick baby. Keeping this lady is a mistake, she is not helping the company in fact she is holding it back from its full potential. Although it would be hard to fire her in real life, it is the necessary task to accomplish in this scenario. Person A is new to the job and hasn't been challenged or tested in what she can or should accomplish, yet. The third person is the best worker in the company and although he is retiring in a year and a half and you don't personally get along with him well, he is still the strongest and most reliable worker. The decision process for this scenario is supposed to be professional, which two people will the company benefit from most, not which two people am I friends with/ who I care about most.
I think we all agree that option “A” should not be fired but I personally disagree with the people that said that they wanted to fire option “C”. She is an excellent teacher, does her work at the best of her ability, is trustable because she has been in the teaching for 35 years and is going to retire in 18 months. Also, just because you do not like a person means that you are going to fire one out, if they are doing their job well, that is great, the other issues that you have with her are yours, they do not include the company. On the other hand, the worker letter “B” has the lowest amount of income in the whole company. Even though she is single and it is going to have a baby, as a worker she is not performing well and it is causing many problems to the company. It is sad that her baby has severe medical problems but the government can give her some economical support.
This is a difficult situation in which a decision has to be made. However, I disagree in Xin’s opinion in firing person A. He says person A “is not experienced enough to help the company out in this situation”, which may seem true on the surface because of his lack of experience with the company, however he did in fact make the company more money than person B did. Therefore, he provides a greater benefit to the company, and is worth keeping. This decision should not take into account the ethics of the situation. Companies want to make money, and person A did just that. The same could be said for person C. Although he is old and difficult to work with, he made money, which should be the goal of any company. He is more efficient than person B, which makes him worth keeping, even if it’s only for another year and a half.
For people who picked person C to fire, they are not thinking for the company in this situation. An experienced worker is the most essential working force and power in this urgent situation. Either person A or person B can be taken out of their position if necessary but not person C. The company is facing a financial corruption and person C is the kind of rock that holds up the company structure inside. a lots of people metioned that person C is not actually making any money, but firing a 35-year employee will cause fear and nervous atmosphere in the company witch will result in the failure of uniting the whole company to pass this task.
I say an emphatic "no" to those people who say employee B must be fired since she brings in the least amount of money and business is separate from ethics. The condition says she brought in the least money "this year". Who knows she brought in more money than any body else last year? Who knows if she will make more profits the next year? In addition, business is not separate from ethics. A countless number of corporations these days choose appeal to emotion as one way to advertise their products and company to the public. If employee B spreads the company's decision to fire her while she just had a baby with serious medical condition, the company's reputation will be critically discredited.
For those people who say C should not be fired because he is the hardest working person, I suggest to you that you read the scenario again. Nowhere in the condition states that C is the hardest working employee. All we know about C is: 1)he has been with the company for 35 years, 2)he is the hardest one to get along with, and 3)he "plans" to retire in 18 months. Here are my interpretations of this employee.
1) Just because he has been working for 35 years, doesn't mean that he is the hardest working man or profit-making. Maybe the company never had a situation like this in which it had to fire employees due to financial crisis for the past 35 years.
2) Business is all about building relationship and communication. Knowing one more business terminology will not make a penny, but knowing one more person will bring in dollars. His uncommunicativeness and diffidence may be the bane of the company.
3) We know what he plans to retire in 18 months, but do we know if he actually will? Unless he already signed on a contract that says he will retire within the next 18 months, he can always change his mind and stay longer.
For these reasons,employee C is the one who should be fired (No offense, C).
Post a Comment