Comments (0)

By admin,

The dilemma we present here is real, told to us for your consideration. We change only names and occasionally some of the details to protect privacy of the individuals and/or organizations involved. If you have an ethical dilemma that you would like to share, please contact Amber Kruk (akruk@globalethics.org).

Jill Notter has been in her position as school head for less than two years at a small Midwestern day school. She has recently worked with her staff to prepare a board report regarding the implementation of an innovative program designed to provide assistance and support to low-income/no-income families with the ultimate goal of improving diversity levels at her school. She has shared the draft of the report with the board chair, Michael Winters, who in turn has shared it with board member Frank Jessup prior to the board meeting where this would be an agenda item.

Later, Jessup comes to see Notter to tell her that he wants her to change some of the data, including lowering the budget implications in the report to make the issue a more compelling one, which would be more likely to get a majority vote. Later in the day, Winters indicates that Notter should accommodate the board member’s request. After all, he explains, the data she has presented is based on projections that could change in their favor. Wouldn’t it be better to get the program approved than to miss the opportunity entirely because her data was too conservative?

After examining and analyzing the decision she was being asked to make, Notter concluded that she was in a truth-versus-loyalty and individual-versus-community dilemma. There was compelling logic to keeping the report as written, and compelling logic to change it.

Truth-Versus-Loyalty
Notter knew that it was right, on the one hand, to let the draft stand as written because all the research and data have led her to the appropriate projections and recommendations, including the budget implications. Notter sees that it is also right to change some of the data out of loyalty to the Winters. He may be looking at the data differently and projecting data that supports what he is asking her to do.

Individual-versus-Community
In addition, Notter saw that it was right to secure more funding to improve diversity levels, but that it was also right, on the other hand, for all the board members to allocate funding based on the merits of the data she feels is accurate.

What is Notter to do?

Resolution:
After morally reasoning her way through her dilemma and applying the guiding resolution principles, Notter made a rule-based decision. She believed that her own standards for presenting information and data to the entire board should be maintained so that all board members could make informed decisions.

In the long-term, this helped to establish the credibility of her own judgment, since the board voted in favor of the program despite the conservative numbers, and the program proved to be a success. Winters and Jessup learned to respect her decisions, and Notter learned that sticking to her own standards was the best way to operate.

Paula Mirk is director of education at the Institute for Global Ethics, Rockland, Maine. © 2010 Institute for Global Ethics (IGE). All future rights reserved.

Comments (3)

By admin,

Richard Pattinson has been hired as a college president. One of his goals is to build a strong sense of trust and openness on the campus where just the opposite atmosphere pervades due to the leadership style of the previous president. Before long, Pattinson notices that Janet Anderson, the vice president and “second in command,” does not seem very happy or able to participate in this effort to build a strong administrative team. He begins to hear reports of Anderson voicing great discontent, both on campus and at various meetings around the state. He has been told by others that this has been a problem in the past.

Pattinson meets with her individually about what he’s heard, and asks her to come to him with any concerns she has, even with questions she has about the way he is doing his job. She admits having talked too much–because she feels stressed in her position, apologizes, and promises to come directly to him with questions or objections in the future. Pattinson also becomes acquainted with Anderson’s family and learns that they have experienced some hardship in making the move to this community a couple of years ago in order for her to accept this position. In fact, her husband has not been able to find full-time employment in his field since their move. Therefore, they rely heavily on her salary.

In spite of Anderson’s promise to change her behavior the troubling habits of complaining and miscommunication of facts began to crop up again. Pattinson calls in a mediator to help improve the communication. He meets with Anderson several times to address specific comments she has made to others. Each meeting ends with her promise to be more careful about what she says. At the end of eighteen months, the situation has not improved. Anderson is performing her basic duties adequately, but disruption of the work atmosphere grows as the reports of her negative and distorted comments increase in number and seriousness.

Pattinson has a dilemma.

On the one hand, it is right to keep Anderson in her position because a boss should guarantee employment security to an employee who performs their basic duties adequately, especially when they are responsible for supporting their family. But, on the other hand, it is right to remove Anderson from her position because the rest of the staff and faculty deserve to work in a positive, harmonious, secure and fair environment which her behavior is undermining.

Comments (0)

By admin,

Peter, a High school administrator in a small rural Maine high school, faced a decision and asked John, the school counselor, to recommend a solution. Katya, a student who had recently returned to the high school after completing a foreign exchange program, would be joining a senior class that was not originally her own. This senior class was about to name their valedictorian – a well-liked young woman with strong ties to the community. Katya was an exceptional student; her grade point average was higher than the young woman who was about to receive the highest honor. Peter has asked John if Katya should be considered for this honor? John considered the dilemma.

It is right, to recommend that Katya be considered as part of the class she will now graduate with. She proved herself academically and should not be penalized for going abroad for one year, given there were no policies in place before Katya left on her foreign exchange that would exclude her from earning honors when she returned.

Yet, it is right, on the other hand, to recommend that the original valedictorian be named. She has proven herself academically and has always been a member of the graduating senior class.

How should Peter choose?