Discussions & Journal Entries

7.16.2023

I've been reflecting on a challenging interaction I experienced with a co-worker some time ago. In the context of a fast-paced manufacturing environment with tight production demands, each member of our team operated on timed work cycles. This occurred during the pandemic, which brought about staffing shortages due to various reasons, requiring us to step in and provide support wherever possible.

I co-led the team alongside a colleague who had different leadership philosophies than mine, yet together, we brought unique value to our team. I noticed a team member not contributing where needed – essentially standing idle. After initially addressing the issue and returning to my task for about five minutes, I found them in the same position. This was not the first instance of such behavior, and it was frustrating to witness this seeming disregard for the collective effort. The consequences were clear – unnecessary burden on the rest of the team. It wasn't feasible to leave someone stationary for long periods, especially in a fast-paced environment.

Approaching the individual, I expressed, "There's a lot to be done. We need your engagement; you can't just remain idle, waiting for the machine." Unbeknownst to me, my co-lead had just reprimanded them for excessive talking, urging them to focus on their task and avoid distracting others.

The situation escalated unexpectedly – tears and raised voices ensued. I was taken aback, feeling blindsided. I realized I had to de-escalate the situation and move the person away from the production line to address the issue calmly. As the conversation continued, accusations emerged: favoritism, targeting, and perceived bias. Despite my efforts to maintain a composed demeanor and focus on team cohesion, the individual persisted, eventually taking their concerns to HR.

I was taken aback by this turn of events. My leadership philosophy centers on equity, inclusion, and shared value. I believed I had acted in good faith – attempting to re-engage someone who was not working. I chose to shrug it off initially, although it lingered.

Subsequently, I began to distance myself from interactions with this individual and situations that might resemble the previous encounter. Regrettably, this led me to step back from my leadership role within the team.

Looking back after two years, I've learned valuable lessons. I recognize the need for better questions and more intentional approaches in such situations. While I may not have technically acted wrongly, I understand I could have approached the individual more effectively. The story has more depth, given the individual's history and eventual departure from the company. On that day, however, I failed to uncover the full context and build the necessary trust.

3.12.2023

Debate surrounding the ethical implications of monitoring employee social media accounts often centers on whether it constitutes an ethical issue or an ethical dilemma:

I distinctly recall the onset of organizations scrutinizing their employees' social media profiles, soliciting account information, and screening potential hires based on their online presence. My initial reaction was one of astonishment; it seemed like a glaring invasion of privacy. Nonetheless, I've also witnessed instances where current and former employees have propagated false or exaggerated statements about our organization, posing a threat to its reputation.

The crux of the matter lies in the decision of whether to encroach upon employee rights in a bid to avert harm to the organization. The potential resolutions to this quandary encompass tracking employees, which could undermine trust; taking no action at all, thus risking organizational damage; or fostering trust and allegiance through empowerment. Recognizing that not all outcomes must be negative, it's apparent that this issue holds ethical significance rather than qualifying as an ethical dilemma.

The optimal standard should prioritize safeguarding the organization while respecting the integrity of employee privacy. I align with the second perspective – that employees should retain their personal privacy. Companies should explore alternative means of safeguarding the organization that do not impinge upon employee rights.

"Commitment arises when one feels positive, contented, trustworthy, and passionate towards the organization" (Prathiba, pg. 51). Elevating each employee's role within the business by means of empowerment, development, and steward leadership offers an avenue to establish an ethical culture and, thereby, mitigate and hinder potential harm to the organization.

 Prathiba, S. (2016). A Study on Impact of Employee Empowerment and Employee Engagement on Organizational Commitment. SIES Journal of Management, 12(2), 45–54. 

2.15.2023

A dialogue unfolded between a colleague and myself, exploring the nuances within mask policies in the workplace:

"It's intriguing to reconsider this after a few years, post-pandemic. Gray areas serve as uncharted territories where process and policy enhancements can thrive. They harbor excitement and reside everywhere, often remaining unseen until a situation emerges. While I'm not entirely certain about the concept of 'established gray areas,' let's initially delve into determining liability.

Imagine you're the owner and operator of a machine shop with 20 employees, spanning various age groups, including elderly and potentially immunocompromised individuals. If one of your team members operates a powerful cutting machine and sustains a finger injury due to missing blade guards, who bears the responsibility? If your safety glasses policy is absent and a piece of hot metal debris strikes an employee's eye, who covers the costs?

Now, envision a scenario involving a highly contagious virus responsible for nearly 7 million deaths within slightly over two years. With numerous recommendations and guidelines from medical experts and health authorities in play, imagine an outbreak in your shop leading to the unfortunate demise of an employee. In the absence of a robust mask policy, who shoulders the consequences? Even if not legally accountable, consider the substantial resources required to mount a defense.

For me, the concept of an 'established gray area' seems synonymous with an undeveloped or poorly conceived policy. At best, it's one that lacked thorough analysis or practical rationale during its creation. Ineffective communication to the team could also be a factor. Policies fashioned in haste bear substantial risks, and the decision to approve and implement such policies strikes me as irresponsible."

2.1.2023

Growing up in a rural New Hampshire town and later relocating to an even more remote locale (yes, I question my choices sometimes), I've gained a distinct perspective on the significance of each stakeholder. Businesses usually commence modestly, with stakeholders primarily encompassing owners along with a small group of employees and customers. As these enterprises expand, so does their "stakeholder circle."

However, when a company's growth reaches a point where the economic well-being of an entire region hinges on its success, a critical question emerges: Does neglecting established best practices and potentially imperiling the company's future transgress ethical boundaries? Does an organization's responsibilities differ significantly whether they employ one person or three thousand?