HRER860 PSU Ethical Decision Making For HR Practioners Essay Performance appraisal tools represent one of the more controversial elements in the performanc
HRER860 PSU Ethical Decision Making For HR Practioners Essay Performance appraisal tools represent one of the more controversial elements in the performance management toolbox. One of the most controversial forms of appraisal has been what at General Electric became famously labelled as Rank and Yank.
Conduct research describing the Rank and Yank appraisal system and then in an essay of between 750 and 1000 words:
Describe the elements of that appraisal system; and
Use Step 4 of the 6 Step Ethical Decision Making Process to evaluate Rank and Yank as a performance appraisal alternative. 10/8/2019
HRER860: Ethical Decision Making for HR Practitioners
HRER860: E
P
D
M
HR
Lesson 07: Ethical Decision Making Applied to HR:
Performance Management
Performance Management
For someone engaged as an HR practitioner, ethical conflicts emerge as part of many functions. One of the most
common occurs in fulfilling responsibilities associated with performance management.
Performance management issues emerge in a variety of situations:
1. HR practitioners will likely be responsible for creating at least initial drafts of performance management
policies and procedures, as well as make professional recommendations that often drive the final
product.
2. Senior HR officers will supervisor staff members and therefore be responsible for influencing the
quantity and quality of their performance.
3. Senior staff in HR are more commonly involved in C-Suite strategy discussions where performance
management policy is increasingly an element in the development of strategies designed to create a
sustainable competitive advantage over competing organizations.
4. A large number of staff in the office even rank-and-file HR practitioners will provide staff assistance
to line managers responsible for performance management in their own domains.
Performance management involves a variety of traditional HR functions including:
values and skills based training
creating and implementing performance appraisal systems
developing succession planning policies
disciplinary policies and procedures
This last responsibility discipline perhaps more than any other presents us with the most profound of ethical
challenges. In the extreme it can substantially damage a persons ability to earn a living and as well as his or her
reputation in the community and self-esteem.
Consider Les Miserables. It is a staple of the theater. It almost continuously plays on stages in New York, London and
Paris to packed audiences reveling in the story and music. It has been considered an extraordinary piece of literature
since its first appearance in 1862 as Victor Hugos most celebrated novel. A moral dilemma occurs early in the story: A
https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008425/modules/items/26907876
1/2
10/8/2019
HRER860: Ethical Decision Making for HR Practitioners
young man, Jean Valjean, must decide between stealing bread to feed his widowed sisters children or obey the law. He
steals the bread, an act that sent him to prison for 19 years and haunts the rest of his life.
Suppose the equivalent of that event were discovered in your own organization. You are the HR staff person who must
determine whether to punish someone who stole corporate property to feed a hungry child. What would you do? (For our
purposes you may assume that these facts are proven. In other words, there is no doubt concerning whether the theft
occurred nor of the accused persons motive.) Keep in mind that in an at-will legal context the organization would have a
virtually uncontested right to discharge the employee, assuming there was no other purpose affecting the managers
decision (e.g., the manager was motivated by illegal racial discrimination).
On the other hand, at-will doctrine would not require that the employee be fired, or even receive a less severe disciplinary
penalty. The ethical dilemma would likely play out as a contest among various moral principles, especially the
deontological and consequential perspectives. For the deontologist, the employee violated a critical rule: Thou shalt not
Steal, particularly from the company. What would be the consequence of the theft?
For the consequentialist, if the company were to tolerate the smallest of thefts it might generate a slippery slope.
Executives might argue that to allow stealing, even a minor incident, would encourage more frequent violations of the
rule, resulting in prohibitive financial losses. Alternatively, what was stolen in the case of Jean Valjean, a loaf of bread
would hardly by itself bring an organization to financial ruin. Also worth considering would be the effect on a child who, if
truly malnourished, would receive the nutritional benefit of a meal. Beyond deontological and consequential principles,
another question that ought to be addressed is what corporate response would be equitable or fair. For example, are
there others in the organization who absconded with comparably valued resources (e.g., padded a dinner receipt for a
couple of extra dollars), but received no penalty, or only the proverbial slap on the wrist?
Again, even in at-will environments, managers should consider one or more of these issues in trying to construct an
appropriate response.
https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008425/modules/items/26907876
2/2
Freedom of Conscience, Employee Prerogatives, and Consumer Choice: Veal, Birth Control,
and Tanning Beds
Author(s): J. M. Dieterle
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 77, No. 2 (Jan., 2008), pp. 191-203
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25075553
Accessed: 08-10-2019 05:30 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:30:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
? Springer 2007
Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 77:191-203
DOI 10.1007/sl0551-006-9308-x
Freedom of Conscience, Employee
Prerogatives, and Consumer Choice:
Veal, Birth Control, and Tanning Beds
ABSTRACT. Does a pharmacist have a right to refuse
to f?l certain prescriptions? In this paper, I examine cases
in which an employee might refuse to do something
that is part of his or her job description. I w?l argue that
in some of these cases, an employee does have a right of
refusal and in other cases an employee does not. In those
cases where the employee does not have a right of
refusal, I argue that the refusals (if repeated) are just
cause for termination of employment. I argue that there
are moral principles that support the different outcomes
in the cases under consideration. I turn to pharmacy
cases at the end of the paper and argue that they are
analogous to cases where an employee does not have a
right of refusal and thus faU under the principle that
refusing to fill birth control prescriptions constitutes just
cause for termination.
KEY WORDS: birth control prescriptions, consumer
rights, employee rights, freedom of conscience, pharma
cist refusals
J. M. Dieterle
State laws on this issue vary widely. Some states
have laws that specifically allow pharmacists to refuse
to fill prescriptions that violate their moral beliefs,
while other states have or are considering laws that
would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions.
Pharmacy policies vary widely, too. Some pharma
cies require their employees to fill any prescription
they have in stock, while other pharmacies allow
their employees to refuse to fill prescriptions.
However, I will not be concerned with the current
legal status of such refusals or actual pharmacy pol
icies in this paper. Instead, I will focus on what law
and pharmacy policies should be. Should pharmacists
be allowed to refuse to perform this particular part of
their job, or is such a refusal just cause for termi
nation?
I asked a more general question at the outset of
this paper: Does an employee have a right to refuse,
as a matter of conscience, to fulfill a particular job
duty? In part I of this paper, I examine other cases in
which an employee might refuse to do something
Does an employee have a right to refuse, as a matter
of conscience, to fulfiU a particular job duty? Triv
iaUy, the answer is yes – the employee can choose to
terminate his or her employment and look for work
elsewhere. But can an employee justifiably refuse to
perform one of the duties of his or her job and yet
expect to remain employed by that business? Phar
macists across the United States have refused to fiU
prescriptions for birth control puis and morning
after piUs, arguing that to do so would violate their
moral beliefs. These pharmacists claim that they have
a right to refuse to fiU the prescriptions and that any
disciplinary action taken by the pharmacy would
violate that right.
that is part of his or her job description. I will argue
that in some of these cases, an employee does have a
right of refusal and in other cases an employee does
not. In those cases where the employee does not
have a right of refusal, I argue that the refusals (if
repeated) are just cause for termination of employ
ment. In part II, I discuss the more difficult cases in
detail and argue that there are moral arguments and
principles that support the different outcomes in the
cases under consideration. In part III, I turn to
pharmacy cases and argue that they are analogous to
the cases where an employee does not have a right of
refusal. Finally, in part IV, I consider and respond to
objections.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:30:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
192 J. M. Dieterle
Cases
6. Fred is an employee of an appliance manu
facturer. He works in sales, and it is a com
mon practice among the salesmen (who are
all male) to take clients to strip clubs. Fred
is committed to feminist principles and re
Consider the foUowing cases:
1. Amy is an employee of a tanning salon. She
refuses to aUow people with blue eyes and
fair skin to use the tanning beds. Her justi
fication is that it is a violation of her moral
beUefs to participate in an activity that is
likely to contribute to skin cancer. Since
the use of tanning beds is linked to skin
cancer, and those with blue eyes and fair
skin are more at risk than other members of
the population, Amy argues that her refusal
is justified by her moral beUefs.
2. Bill works at a bank. His reUgion dictates
that charging or paying interest is immoral
and he thus refuses to oversee any transac
tions that involve interest bearing accounts
or loans. He argues that his refusal is justi
fuses to participate in these outings. Fred ar
gues that his refusal is justified by his moral
beliefs.
7. Gwen is a justice of the peace, employed
by the city. She refuses to marry people
who have previously been married and sub
sequently divorced. Gwen believes that
marriage is for life. She argues that her refu
sal to marry divorced people is justified by
her moral beliefs.
8. Henry works at a non-profit animal shelter.
The shelter routinely euthanizes those dogs
that are aggressive and thus not adoptable.
Henry is opposed to the euthanasia policy
because he thinks that it is morally wrong
to put down a dog, no matter what its
fied by his moral beUefs.
3. Cindy is an employee of an advertising
agency. She refuses to participate in adver
tising campaigns that directly target smaU
children. Her justification is that directly
targeting children is a violation of her moral
beUefs. Ch?dren are not mature enough
to be rational consumers. Since directly tar
demeanor. Henry refuses to participate in
any cases of euthanasia, arguing that the re
fusal is justified by his moral beliefs.
9. Isabel is a cashier in a grocery store. Her
religion dictates that the consumption of
alcohol is immoral and she thus refuses to
sell alcohol to any customer. She argues that
her refusal is justified by her moral beliefs.
geting children in advertising campaigns is
tantamount to unjustifiably influencing 10. Jeff is a cashier in a convenience store.
He believes that the purpose of sex is pro
them, Cindy argues that her refusal to par
creation and any sexual activity in which
ticipate in such campaigns is justified by her
moral beUefs.
fertilization is prevented is morally wrong.
Jeff thus refuses to sell condoms to anyone.
4. Doug is an employee at a fast-food estab
lishment. He works behind the counter tak
He argues that his refusal is justified by his
moral beliefs.
ing orders and giving customers their food.
Doug is a vegetarian on moral grounds and
refuses to serve meat of any kind to cus
tomers. He argues that eating meat is
Which, if any, of these ten employees has the right
to refuse to provide the good or service in question?
immoral, according to his beliefs, and thus
Which, if any, of these ten employees could legiti
that his refusal is justified.
mately be fired for refusing to provide the good or
5. Edith is a waitress at a high-end restaurant.
She is moraUy opposed to animal cruelty.
She tolerates serving some meat to her cus
tomers, but finds veal particularly moraUy
offensive. Edith thus refuses to serve veal
to any customer. She argues that her refu
sal to serve veal is justified by her moral
beUefs.
service? Which, if any, should be fired? In the
United States, 55% of employees are employed
“at will.” Their employers can hire, fire, promote,
or demote them whenever they please, for any
reason. So, legally, many if not most of the ten
employees could be fired, and perhaps most of them
would be. However, I am concerned with whether
there is just cause for their termination. My argument
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:30:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Freedom of Conscience, Employee Prerogatives, and Consumer Choice 193
deals with whether the refusal in question constitutes
a good reason for terminating the employee. Should
the employees be fired if they refuse to provide the
disputed good or service? Or should they be aUowed
to continue in their position wh?e refusing to per
form that part of the job with which their moral
beliefs conflict?
One principle that seems straightforward is that
when the duties of the job essentiaUy involve the
practice to which the employee is moraUy opposed
(i.e., the job cannot be done without engaging in
that practice), the employee’s refusal constitutes just
cause for termination. In such cases, the job is not a
good fit for that particular person and he or she
ought to find work elsewhere. Doug (Case 4) ought
not to work at a fast-food restaurant – if he wishes to
stay in the food business, he should seek employ
ment at a vegetarian restaurant. Working behind the
counter at a fast-food establishment essentiaUy in
volves the seUing of meat. There is no way for Doug
to perform the duties specified by his job description
without violating his moral beliefs. There would
thus be just cause for the fast-food estabUshment to
fire Doug if Doug refused to serve meat to cus
tomers. Likewise, BiU (Case 2) ought not to be
employed by a bank. A bank is a business that
essentiaUy involves dealing with interest-bearing
accounts and loans. There is no way for BiU to
perform the duties specified by his job description
without violating his moral beliefs. Thus, if BiU re
fused to oversee any transactions involving interest,
the bank would have just cause for firing him.
Another fairly straightforward principle concerns
cases like Fred’s (Case 6). When the practice in
question is not a part of the job itself, but, instead,
something “extra,” the employee can justifiably re
fuse to engage in the practice. Fred’s refusal is not
just cause for firing him. Taking clients to a strip
club is not part of the job description of a salesman.
Fred can perform aU of his duties without partici
pating in the strip club outings, so his moral beliefs
do not infringe on his ability to do his job.
AU of the remaining cases involve employees
that causing unnecessary pain to any sentient being is
morally wrong. Gwen thinks she will pay dearly in
the afterlife if she pronounces two people married
when at least one of them has been divorced. Amy
watched her mother die of skin cancer and she is
deeply committed to helping others avoid the same
fate, etc.
On an intuitive level, some of the refusals seem
justified; it seems that it would be unjust for the
employee in question to be fired for the refusal.
Other cases are less clear, and still others seem,
intuitively, to be cases where there would be just
cause for termination. But social policy should not
be based on intuition. We need principled reasons to
demarcate legitimate cases of firing and legitimate
cases of employee refusal.
Before turning to the main argument, it is worth
noting that there are significant differences in the
kinds of businesses involved in the cases. One is
a public institution (Gwen, Case 7), one is a non
profit organization (Henry, Case 8) two involve
retail establishments that are open to the public
(Isabel, Case 9; and Jeff, Case 10), one involves
a service that is open to the public (Amy, Case 1),
one involves a restaurant (Edith, Case 5), and one
involves a private firm that companies contract for
services (Cindy, Case 3). These differences may
affect our judgments of the legitimacy of the
employees’ refusals.
Moral arguments and principles
In the previous section, I established two principles
regarding employee refusals:
1. When the duties of the job essentially in
volve the practice to which the employee is
morally opposed (i.e., the job cannot be
done without engaging in that practice), the
employee’s refusal constitutes just cause for
termination.
2. When the practice in question is not a part
refusing to do something, based on their moral be
liefs, which wiU or may regularly occur. Let us as
of the job itself, but, instead, something “ex
sume, for the purpose of this argument, that aU of the
engage in the practice.
relevant moral beliefs are fundamental for the
respective employees. For example, Edith’s conduct,
in every aspect of her life, is based on the principle
tra,” the employee can justifiably refuse to
In this section of the paper, I discuss the moral
arguments and principles that should guide our
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:30:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
194 J. M. Dieterle
decisions in cases where neither of these principles
apply. I begin with the arguments.
Since I am assuming that all of the relevant
moral beliefs are fundamental for the respective
employees, the refusals are indistinguishable from
the point of view of the employee. Each em
ployee has based his or her refusal to engage in a
particular practice or activity on a deeply held
moral belief. These are thus principled decisions
for the employees; they are not decisions made on
a whim or decisions that the employees take
lightly. Each of the employees believes that if he
or she engages in the particular practice or activity,
he or she will be doing something that is funda
mentally morally wrong. Furthermore, each em
ployee can do a large portion of his or her job
without engaging in the practice or activity that
he or she finds morally objectionable. It is just that
on certain occasions, the employee may be faced
with a circumstance in which he or she is asked to
provide the good or service that is the subject of
moral condemnation.
The differences between the refusals arise only
when we view them from the perspective of the
customer to whom the good or service is denied.
I will discuss each of the remaining cases in turn.
Case 1: Amy and the tanning salon. This case
involves an employee of a business that provides a
service to its customers. The business is open to the
public; anyone can walk in and request a time slot in
the tanning bed. Suppose I am a fair skinned, blue
eyed person. I walk into the tannin…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
