Contemporary Ethical Issues in the Workplace – McDonald’s

Contemporary Ethical Issues in the Workplace – McDonald’s

In November of 2019, the US fast-food outlet McDonald’s fired its CEO, Steve Easterbrook. This was following a revelation that the boss was having a relationship with one of the employees. Although it was acknowledged that the relationship was consensual, this still went against the company’s policies. The fast-food giant added that the relationship was a depiction of poor judgment (BBC, 2019). Easterbrook agreed to step down as a board member and president of McDonald’s after the board voted him out. The company policies are against conflicts of interest. The potential for litigation in the event the relationship becomes sour is very high, and this puts McDonald’s at a great risk (BBC, 2019).

According to Wilson (2015), dating an employee has several ethical issues, including preferential treatment given to the person, with performance evaluations being skewed to favour the said person. Other employees may begin to perceive they are being treated unfairly, even when this is not the case. In addition, this may lead to diminished credibility of the senior person in the staff’s perception and compromised employee morale. These issues include negative productivity from the engaged employees; the work environment can be impacted by internal politics; the boss may share confidential information with the said partner; a conflict of interest is created when the employees are in different ranks; a hostile work environment following a break-up; and when the relationship fails, a claim of harassment and discrimination may follow.

Kidder Model of Decision Making

1. Recognize that there is a moral issue: The CEO of McDonald’s confessed to having a relationship with one of the staff. The potential for harm comes in the company incurring major losses following litigation if the relationship goes sour. If, for any reason, the relationship does not work, the female employee may sue the CEO for a myriad of reasons, including sexual harassment, unfairness, discrimination, and abuse of office, among others. McDonald’s reputation as a company will also be portrayed in a negative light, which can cost the organization losses in terms of a decline in consumer loyalty and branding privileges for major events.
2. Determine the Actor: The main actors are the CEO of McDonald’s and the female employee. The board at McDonald’s has the power and capacity to correct moral issues by taking swift action.
3. Gather the Relevant Facts: The company has a policy against employees having personal relationships with each other. As mentioned, the CEO had a relationship with a female employee. The board voted to have him step down as the CEO and board member. The CEO did not contest the decision and acknowledged that the relationship was a mistake and a breach of company policies.
4. Test for right-versus-wrong issues: This is a legal issue because it goes against company policies. The action does not go against my moral principles because it involves a consensual relationship between two adults. It fails the publicity test because once the rest of the staff realizes that the CEO has an affair with an employee, they may perceive unfairness whether or not such unfairness exists. The issue also fails the moral exemplar test because CEOs are expected to be the first employees to follow company policies and the ones that the rest of the staff looks up to.
5. Test for right-versus-right dilemma paradigms: The CEO should have been honest with the board right from the start and revealed that he had a relationship with an employee rather than wait for the revelation to be made by others. It fails in the individual versus community test because the CEO was individualistic in putting his needs/desires above company policy. The CEO had a short-term vision because he did not consider the permanent repercussions of breaking company policy. He was also not just in his actions because he took advantage of his position to have a relationship and keep quiet about it while the reputation of the employee was at stake if the rest of the staff found out about the relationship. She was bound to experience the negatives of having a relationship with the boss, as mentioned earlier.

Identify other role specific values and duties: The company policies expressly forbid employees from engaging in any romantic relationships.

6. Apply resolution principles: Aristotle’s Golden Mean calls for a moderate ground to be sought in what is morally right or wrong. The CEO and the employee have a right to date each other, just not in the workplace. The issue is not morally wrong; the setting is what makes it wrong.
7. Investigate the ‘trilemma’ options: There is a third option where McDonald’s can change its company policies to allow for staff to date each other but on specific conditions. One such condition would be to have the dating couple reveal to HR of their relationship. Another would be to have the dating couple sign an agreement that in the event that the relationship fails, neither of them would involve the organization in any form of litigation. Thirdly, the parties will need to sign an agreement allowing for HR to relieve either or both of them of their duties if the relationship is deemed to negatively affect productivity in the workplace.
8. Make the decision: Make the decision: The CEO and staff were in violation of the company policies and hence liable for the prescribed action to be taken, stepping down from their positions.
9. Revisit and Reflect on the decision: Company policies are written to protect the employees and the origination. Every employee is expected to read and sign an agreement to adhere to the policies. Breaching the policies calls for the appropriate actions stipulated in the policies to be taken. However, I believe the company should change the policies to allow for employees to have relationships but on certain terms and conditions.

Reflection

I believe that the CEO and the female employee should have revealed their relationship earlier rather than wait to be discovered. The arrival was justified as the two were in violation of company policy. However, the company needs a revision of its policies that will allow employees to have relationships without risking the company to any form of litigation or negative publicity. I chose the Kidder model to assess the ethical scenario because it offers more parameters in analyzing the moral aspect of a case. From this analysis, I learned that some policies that are made in the workplace are bound to be breached due to circumstances beyond human nature, and hence, alternatives need to be made. There is no way a policy can prevent a person from choosing the partner he/she wants to be with; it’s against the law of natural selection. Archaic policies should be revised to fit within an evolving workplace.

References

BBC News (2019). McDonald’s boss Steve Easterbrook fired after dating employee. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50283720#:~:text=McDonald’s%20has%20fired%20its%20chief,and%20shown%20%22poor%20judgement%22.&text=He%20is%20also%20eligible%20for,firm%20hits%20its%20performance%20goals.

Johnson, C. E. (2018). Organizational ethics: A practical approach. Sage Publications.

Wilson, F. (2015). Romantic relationships at work: why love can hurt. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 1-19.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

In this exercise, you will identify and analyze two contemporary ethical issues in the workplace. Each issue should be drawn from your personal experience or from news reports. (Be sure to protect the privacy of others if you choose a personal case.) Provide a description: Describe the situation in enough detail for the reader to understand the background and the issues. Write this description in paragraph form.

Contemporary Ethical Issues in the Workplace – McDonald’s

1. Apply a decision-making format: Resolve the issue using Kidder’s Ethical Checkpoints or the Five “I” format from Chapter 3. You may use lists for some steps, such as when specifying possible solutions.
2. Reflect: Evaluate your decision and the format you followed. Identify what you learned from your analysis.

(Objective 3.3, 3.4, 3.5)

Description

In each contemporary case, you will identify and analyze a contemporary ethical issue in the workplace drawn from your personal experience or news reports. (Be sure to protect the privacy of others if you choose a personal case).

• Target Length: 3 to 4 pages (750 to 1000 words)