The ethical dilemma in this situation is who to employ as the new marketing manager. Whether it is the person who really needs the job because of some deep financial needs and family concerns but is barely able to do the job right, or the employ the person that could do an outstanding job, fitting in with just the right qualification plus a masters degree in marketing yet is of a different racial domination. This dilemma is about what is morally correct, and about what could have been correct, yet it was overshadowed by another concern, like how many mouths does the salary of a person has to feed, or if that person has a sick relative and is in great need of money.
Much more if the reason for not accepting a very qualified candidate just because this candidate is Mexican and the co-manager you are working with simply does not want her for unspecified reasons. Her work is of acceptable quality, based mainly on her background profile and her masters degree just says it all. If you consider the importance of the hiring a Mexican of a top caliber, as compared to those whose works may probably be under expectations, this would incur a further opportunity cost to the company. Furthermore, if another company would happen to hire her without minding much about her ethnicity being Mexican, this could pose yet another threat and loss to the company since the other company would have a slight advantage in their workforce. Not to mention that if other companies would know that our company let go of such a talented candidate because of her being Mexican, it would draw out a negative picture in the company’s human resource planning (Thailand. Samnakngan Khana Kammakan Watthanatham haeng Chat., 2001).
If I was a bright and energetic manager of that certain company, I would definitely talk with my colleague about the matter and ask for a tangible ground for not considering the Mexican for the position (Lagan & Moran, 2006). This should be done in a professional manner so as not to harm any professional relationships I have with my colleague. If and then that certain ground my colleague would give me is valid, then I have no choice but to accept that as my own decision as well. Otherwise, especially if it would be because of ethnicity or other personal reasons he still would not dare specify, then I would have to take appropriate actions and file for a case against him in the upper management office for discrimination.
Not hiring an application because of gender, race, religion, or ethnicity is punishable under US laws and could be filed against the company (Cohen, 2003). For instance, if the applicant files a case on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the company, the latter could loose its license to operate if appropriate measures are not done at an early stage. This is punishable under the Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 (Charlesworth & Catholic Education Office (Melbourne Vic.), 2004). Once the company would be sanctioned, the company would then be obliged to pay the discriminated applicant pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Australian Association of Social Workers., 2000). With that in mind, it would be such a grave mistake to turn down an applicant on the grounds of her being a Mexican.
However, if that Mexican is an illegal alien, then measures could be implemented and her being turned down would be a valid reason but that is a different story already. The point is, I am, in this case both a stakeholder and the decision maker. I am a stakeholder because I must do my job as a manager of and yet I also must decide on what actions to be done so as to address the problem, thus, a decision maker.
Ethical issues surround this case because my colleague contemplated an option which he should not done in the first place because he was somewhat biased. Kant, in his categorical imperative theory defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary (Categorical Imperative, Wikipidea, para.1). In this case something must be done immediately because the higher authority is not happy about the fines that are being levied onto the company.
Reference:
- Australian Association of Social Workers. (2000). AASW : by -law on ethics: Barton Australian Association of Social Workers.
- Charlesworth, H. C., & Catholic Education Office (Melbourne Vic.). (2004). 2004 Catholic Education Week address : building bridges : the Catholic Church and human rights. [Melbourne: Catholic Education Office.
- Cohen, M. (2003). 101 ethical dilemmas. London ; New York: Routledge.
- Lagan, A., & Moran, B. (2006). 3D ethics : implementing workplace values : personal, organisational and social dimensions of business ethics. Maleny, Qld.: eContent Management.
- Thailand. Samnakngan Khana Kammakan Watthanatham haeng Chat. (2001). 108 withi mop namchai hai kaekan (Phim khrang thi 1. ed.). Krung Thep: Samnakngan Khana Kammakan Watthanatham haeng Chat.