A store manager directs his/her assistant manager to reprimand a worker for poor performance. The assistant manager voices his/her disagreement with reprimanding the worker; he feels th4e worker exceeds expectations. The store manager insists that that the direction needs to be carried out, regardless. Furthermore, the store manager directs the assistant manager not to mention to the worker that the store manager directed him/her(assistant manager) to reprimand the worker. Do you find the store manager’s directions unethical?



I find them unethical on the grounds that the store manager is provoking the assistant manager to present him/herself in a dishonest manner. She or he will be tempted to give the impression that assistant manager’s reasons for conducting the reprimand was based on his/her conviction rather than the conviction of the store manager.

Welcome to the modern way of doing business. Your store manager sucks.

But, then again, you shouldn't have been naughty. What have you been up to, exactly?

Welcome to the modern way of doing business. Your store manager sucks.

But, then again, you shouldn't have been naughty. What have you been up to, exactly?

Me naughty. Hey dude I am just telling it like it is. It's shady. There is no other way to put it.

Welcome to the modern way of doing business. Your store manager sucks.

But, then again, you shouldn't have been naughty. What have you been up to, exactly?

This is very common in a very well-known corporation, a disgruntled employee who is articulate can make them seriously pay. They really don't need bad publicity.

They cannot make you pay for this.

A store manager directs his/her assistant manager to reprimand a worker for poor performance. The assistant manager voices his/her disagreement with reprimanding the worker. The store manager insists that that the direction needs to be carried out, regardless. Furthermore, the store manager directs the assistant manager not to mention to the worker that the store manager directed him/her(assistant manager) to reprimand the worker. Do you find the store manager’s directions unethical?

Just curious ....would you expect that the CEO of, say, Sony or Ford Motor Company fly to the location just to reprimand an employee? No, you probably don't.

But yet you can't take the same concept and apply it to this case. Why not? Why do you think the manager should reprimand an employee personally? Or, if the manager feels the employee deserves a reprimand, that he shouldn't make the man's "immediate" supervisor do it?

I'm slightly confused by your idea of "ethics" in this regard. Care to explain?

Baron Max

But yet you can't take the same concept and apply it to this case. Why not? Why do you think the manager should reprimand an employee personally? Or, if the manager feels the employee deserves a reprimand, that he shouldn't make the man's "immediate" supervisor do it?

I do agree the store manager generally should delegate reprimands to his or her assistant. However, if the assistant strongly disagrees with the reprimand, the assistant manager has the right to mention that he/she was instructed by his/her store manager. If the store manager forbids the assistant from mentioning this, the assisant's integrity is in jeopardy. Suppose the assistant has mentioned repeatedly that this worker exceeded expectations. The worker will wonder why all of a sudden he/she is reprimand for performance. A decent store manager takes in account all of these factors.

They cannot make you pay for this.

Sure she can. Most people I explain this to call it shady! The news media would love to hear rumors like this, especially rumors about companies who promote themselves as ethical, fair and honest

Just curious ....would you expect that the CEO of, say, Sony or Ford Motor Company fly to the location just to reprimand an employee? No, you probably don't.

But yet you can't take the same concept and apply it to this case. Why not? Why do you think the manager should reprimand an employee personally? Or, if the manager feels the employee deserves a reprimand, that he shouldn't make the man's "immediate" supervisor do it?

I'm slightly confused by your idea of "ethics" in this regard. Care to explain?

Baron Max

There is a lack of integrity in this case. This is clearly demonstrated by the store manager abusing his/her authority by forbidding the assistant mentioning that he/she was instructed to reprimand the worker. Yet, it is the essential reason why the assistant is reprimanding the worker. The worker will probably ask the assistant why she is reprimanded for perfomance when the assistant has mentioned that she exceeded expecations. How should he answer this question? There is no way to justify it; it is dishonesty to the core.

Huggins293:

People do not care about relatively minor things like this. If there was a rat pissing in the kitchen, or someone was pocketing funds, that'd be different.

There is a lack of integrity in this case. This is clearly demonstrated by the store manager abusing his/her authority by forbidding the assistant mentioning that he/she was instructed to reprimand the worker. ....

I personally think that your ideals of ethics needs a good dash of realism and human nature.

The worker will probably ask the assistant why she is reprimanded for perfomance when the assistant has mentioned that she exceeded expecations. How should he answer this question?

Why does he have to answer it?

It's one thing to hope that everything in life should be perfect, but to actually expect it is to be .....ahh, fanatical?

Baron Max

You can always advise the employee that if they are unhappy with your reprimand or with the manner in which you delivered it or the reasons behind it, that they are free to approach the manager themselves with any such concern.:)


But really, aren't you taking this a bit seriously? This is how it is in the real world. We are at times forced into doing something we don't want to do or feel is right. If you aren't happy about your treatment, file a complaint with higher management. As for threatening to make them pay. Pay what exactly? The manager delegated his/her responsibilities to you. Now you must deal with it. It's how it's done in the big bad world.

Bells:


We are at times forced into doing something we don't want to do or feel is right


I'm sure the Nazi soldiers were saying that to themselves as they pushed those Jews and Slavs into the gas chambers! :D


Furthermore, the store manager directs the assistant manager not to mention to the worker that the store manager directed him/her(assistant manager) to reprimand the worker. Do you find the store manager’s directions unethical?


Yes, of course it's unethical, and demonstrates a lack of integrity. It's also poor work ethic... it may generate ill feeling between the employees.

The answer to your dilemma is simple, however. Simply reprimand the worker, but clearly state that you aren't the one who has a problem with his performance. If he asks who does, just point to the ceiling.

The answer to your dilemma is simple, however. Simply reprimand the worker, but clearly state that you aren't the one who has a problem with his performance. If he asks who does, just point to the ceiling.

But that's also unethical, because it undermines the authority and respect of higher management ...which, essentially, is the company image to most employees.

Thus doing it this way could actually, potentially, cause widespread problems with all of the employees, not just one! Surely that would be more unethical than to chance the loss of only one employee?

Baron Max

Yes, God forbid that the mindless automatons should realise that the whole deal is a sham, that their jobs are cack and that they're working for peanuts.

:rolleyes:

Baron:

But that's also unethical, because it undermines the authority and respect of higher management ...which, essentially, is the company image to most employees.


Huh? Since when was it unethical to tell the truth? Ever since you first started posting on this forum, you've never shut up about your right to speak the truth, even if it may upset others.

The fact of the matter is that the higher management DID ask to criticize an excellent employee, and the DID ask someone else to do their dirty work. They also asked the employee to lie by omission.

Management has undermined its own authority and respect.


Thus doing it this way could actually, potentially, cause widespread problems with all of the employees, not just one! Surely that would be more unethical than to chance the loss of only one employee?


So it's unethical to point out to a worker that they are being exploited?

Interesting. Now I know why Communism was (and still is) so popular. When employers pull this shit on their employees, I'd want to rise up as well.

Baron: Huh? Since when was it unethical to tell the truth?

You think about that one, okay? Don't just make a quick judgement ...think about it.

I can think of several examples right off the top of my head. Give it some thought, but do so without your rigid ideals of "ethics".

The fact of the matter is that the higher management DID ask to criticize an excellent employee, and the DID ask someone else to do their dirty work. They also asked the employee to lie by omission.

And your point is ......???

So it's unethical to point out to a worker that they are being exploited?

Unethical by whose standards? You seem to be under the misconception that "ethics" is, somehow, universal. It ain't.

Baron Max

Bells:



I'm sure the Nazi soldiers were saying that to themselves as they pushed those Jews and Slavs into the gas chambers! :D



Yes, of course it's unethical, and demonstrates a lack of integrity. It's also poor work ethic... it may generate ill feeling between the employees.

The answer to your dilemma is simple, however. Simply reprimand the worker, but clearly state that you aren't the one who has a problem with his performance. If he asks who does, just point to the ceiling.

LOL, thanks for a correct response, but so many upper level managers love to justify this behavior.

LOL, thanks for a correct response, but so many upper level managers love to justify this behavior.

And aren't you also seeking "justification" for your own ideals and sense of ethics?

Baron Max

Unethical by whose standards? You seem to be under the misconception that "ethics" is, somehow, universal. It ain't.

Baron Max
Okay you're right; we can not determine if it is unethical. If that is the case, I will advise assistants to disobey those types of intructions.

..., I will advise assistants to disobey those types of intructions.

But isn't that going against your own ideals of ethics?

Baron Max

Baron Max[/QUOTE]

You can always advise the employee that if they are unhappy with your reprimand or with the manner in which you delivered it or the reasons behind it, that they are free to approach the manager themselves with any such concern.:)


But really, aren't you taking this a bit seriously? This is how it is in the real world. We are at times forced into doing something we don't want to do or feel is right. If you aren't happy about your treatment, file a complaint with higher management. As for threatening to make them pay. Pay what exactly? The manager delegated his/her responsibilities to you. Now you must deal with it. It's how it's done in the big bad world.

You are being forced to lie in circumstance where the employee will have suspcion about your true motives. I have no problem executing the reprimand, but I will tell the employee who instructed it. It is that simple.

Why does he have to answer it?
Baron Max
If he/she fails to answer, it may harm their relationship. Not answering the question, indicates that he/she refuses to be up front with the worker. The store manager is directly responsible for this outcome. A good leader would tell the truth.
Furthermore, a decent store manager would have allowed the assistant to tell the truth.

But isn't that going against your own ideals of ethics?

Baron Max
Baron, in what way? It was unethical to instruct the assistant manager to conceal the fact that the reprimand was executed essentially because of the store manager's command. Are we to follow commands that violate ethical standards? Do you justify this type of behavior? Do you believe that integrity is an important part of running a business?

Huggins293:

People do not care about relatively minor things like this. If there was a rat pissing in the kitchen, or someone was pocketing funds, that'd be different.

Applicants who thought about working for this company will care. Furthermore, if this information is sperad strongly throughout the media, this will discourage many workers in the company in pursuing managment careers. Would you want to work in management for a company who encourages these type of tactics? Most people would not.

This is how it is in the real world. We are at times forced into doing something we don't want to do or feel is right. If you aren't happy about your treatment, file a complaint with higher management.
I would say how about telling the worker the truth! Protecting your store manager by any means is foolish.

As for threatening to make them pay. Pay what exactly? The manager delegated his/her responsibilities to you. Now you must deal with it. It's how it's done in the big bad world.
I don't think most people want to work for store managers who engage in these type of tactics.

Ermm Huggins, that is how it is.

If you disagree with it, voice your concerns. If you think this is a great ethical dilemma, be thankful you only work in retail.

Management delegated his duty to you. Whether you follow such orders is now entirely up to you. Personally, I think the manager should approach the employee himself, but he has decided to delegate. Now the ethical dilemma. He has advised you to not tell the employee where the reprimand stems from.

You think it is unethical that he has placed you in said decision and don't think you should have to lie for him. Fair enough. But you are willing to lie to your manager since you don't say whether you refused to do his bidding when he ordered you to (so I am assuming you accepted his order) and tell the employee the truth. In short, you don't think it is ethically sound to lie for your manager, but you think it is ethically sound to lie to him?

Look you could simply refuse to carry out the manager's order and state your reasons as to why. Tell them of your problems with this issue and have other members of management present so they can hear your concern. Going public as though you are some type of hero whistleblower simply will not work because you will come off looking like a disgruntled employee who cannot follow simple orders and believe me, the public won't care if the issue is management lying to employees in directing others to reprimand the lower tier in the business. Or you can go in direct contradiction to what your manager said and tell the employee where the reprimand comes from. In one instance, you will be honest with the manager and yourself and in the other instance, you will still find yourself lying or to at least one individual, that being the manager.

You pick.

Ermm Huggins, that is how it is.

If you disagree with it, voice your concerns. If you think this is a great ethical dilemma, be thankful you only work in retail.
The assistant did and it did no good. I am just curious; should we just allow the world to be unethical? Should we just accept injustice, corruption, and dishonesty? It seems to me that people in many forums simply have "that's the way it is attitude." What happened to confronting these evils? Suppose his supervisor does nothing! Should a company who promotes itself as a company of integrity be allowed to do such things? I think if an assistant is terminated for this, he or she should try to get as much publicity toward the issue as possible. If it is widespread in the company, it should not be overlooked. Other former managers of the company will speak out and the company will suffer bad publicity.

Management delegated his duty to you. Whether you follow such orders is now entirely up to you

Exactly, and I'd rather not follow the order to conceal his identity. I may add that this is a pretend scenario but I have had situations similar to this.


Personally, I think the manager should approach the employee himself, but he has decided to delegate.

I agree. His decision to delegat is based on exploiting his/her authority.

Now the ethical dilemma. He has advised you to not tell the employee where the reprimand stems from
Sorry, he did not avise the assistant, he ordered him not to. IF it was advise, it would be more acceptable.

You think it is unethical that he has placed you in said decision and don't think you should have to lie for him. Fair enough. But you are willing to lie to your manager since you don't say whether you refused to do his bidding when he ordered you to (so I am assuming you accepted his order) and tell the employee the truth.
I would follow the order to rerpimand but reject the order to conceal his name out of being directly involved in the reprimand. That is the ethical choice. My insubordination would be justified under ethical grounds.


In short, you don't think it is ethically sound to lie for your manager, but you think it is ethically sound to lie to him?

In the first case, I would not lie for my manager when it puts my relationship with my worker in jeopardy. Furthermore, I would not lie to him.


Look you could simply refuse to carry out the manager's order and state your reasons as to why. Tell them of your problems with this issue and have other members of management present so they can hear your concern. Going public as though you are some type of hero whistleblower simply will not work because you will come off looking like a disgruntled employee who cannot follow simple orders and believe me, the public won't care if the issue is management lying to employees in directing others to reprimand the lower tier in the business. .
Clearly there is a difference between following an order of reprimand and concealing the store managers name when it is he who motivated the rerpimand. The former is an unethical order that should be taken seriously.
I don't see how I would seen as a former whining employee when I am terminated for stating his name in a reprimand. At that time I would whistleblow on the employer. Would you or would allow them to exploit you?
Permitting companies to use any tactics to achieve their objective violates your dignity. Would you want to work for management that conducts themself in that manner. At will employers are not immune from bad publicity.

Ermm Huggins, that is how it is.
Bell, I understand it is how it is. But it will remain how it is, if people do not stand up against it. Allowing at-will companies to use dishonest tactics is exploiting the victims of it. Don't you agree? If you do, why do you have this attitude? The assistant voiced his concerns but nothing happened. If he gets fired for not completely following the store manager's command, he should retaliate. A 15 year job is not disposable and that is what this assistant had with this company. That is why it is such a big deal!