Real Case: Not Treating Everyone the Same As recently as the 1980s, managers in some of the most productive organizations in the country used to pride themselves on treating all their employees equally. This typically meant holding the line on rules and regulations So that everyone conformed to the same set of guide- lines. Moreover, when people were evaluated, they were typically assessed on the hasis of their performance in the workplace. In recent years there has been a dramatic change in management’ thinking. Instead of treating everyone the samc, some organizations are now trying. to meat the specific needs of employees. What is done for onc individual employee may not be done for another. Additionally, instead of evaluating all employ- ees on how weil they work in the workplace, attention is being focused on how much “value added” people ‘Acina was losing hundreds of talented people every year fand felt that the cost to the company was too great ‘Something had to be done to keep these people on the payroll. As a result, today approximately 2,000 of ‘Acma’s 44,000 employees work part-time, share a job, ‘work at home, or are on compressed workweek arrangement. The company estimates that it saves ‘approximately $1 million annually by not having to train ‘new workers, Moreover, the company’ reported that in ‘one recent year 88 percent of those employees who tock family lave rotumed to work. An added benefit ofthis program isthe faet that Aetna’ reputation as a good place to work has been strengthened. The Families ane ‘Work Institute recently named Actaa one of the top four “family-triendly” companies. Duke Power & Light is another good example of how companies are changing their approach to managing ‘employees. Realizing that child eare is a growing need among many employees, because in most households ‘both parents now work, the company joined forces with ‘other employers to build a child care center. The firm ‘as also changed its work schedule assignments. In the pat, many employees reported that they hated working sowing shifts: days one week, evenings the aext, and then contribute, regardless of how many hours they are phys- ically at the workplace. This new philosophy is also spilling over into the way alternative work arrangements ‘are being handled. ‘An example is Aetna Life & Casualty, where workers ‘are given the option of reducing their workweek or com- pressing the time into fewer days. Under this arrange- ‘eat, a parent who wants to spend more time at home With the children can opt to cut working hours from 40 down to 30 per week or put in four 10-hour days and hhave a long weekend with the kids. In either case, these personal decisions do not negatively affect the ‘employee's opportunities for promotion. Why is the company so willing to accommodate the personal sizes of the workers? One of the main reasons is that rights. So the firm ereated 22 work schedules and now less employees hid on them annually, based on seniority. Some of these shifis are the traditional five-day week of ‘eight-hour days. Others, however, are compressed work- ‘week alternatives, including four 10-hour days and three 12-hour days. At the same time, the company has been ‘turning more authority over to the personnel and has dsiven up its emplayee-to-manager ratio from 12 to | to 20 to |. As a result, the company now has an attrition rate that is over thee times lower than the industry aver- ‘age, and most of this attrition is a result of people's transferring to other jobs in the utility. As one manager put it, “We needled to recognize that people have lives” On the basis of results, it is obvious that the new ‘arrangement is a win-win situation for both the workers ‘and the firm. 1. How isthe new management philosophy described in this case different from that of the oid, traditional philosophy? Identify and describe the differences. 2. Im what way are alternative work schedules proving helpful to managing diversity? 3. Do you think these new programs arc likely to con~ ‘tinue of will they taper off? Why’?Organizational Behavior Case: Changing with the Times Jerry is director of marketing for a large toy company. Presently, his team of executives consists entirely of wihite males. The company says iti committed to diver- sity and equal opportunity. In a private conversation ‘with Robert, the company president, about the makeup of top-level management in the marketing department, Jerry admitted that he tends to promote people who are like him. Jerry stated, “It just seems like when a promotion ‘opportunity exists in our department, the perfect person for the job happens to be a white male, Am T supposed to actively seek women and minorities, even if I don’t feel that they are the best person for the job? After all, ‘we aren't violating the law, are we?” Robert responded, “So far the performance in your department tas been good, and as far as I know, we are not violating any discrimination laws. Your manage- ‘ment team seems to work well together, and we don't ‘want to do anything to upset that, especially consider- ing the big marketing plans we have for this coming fiscal year.” ‘The big marketing plans Robert is referring to have to do with capturing a sizable share of the overseas mar- ket. The company thinks that a large niche exists in var- {ous countries around the world—and who better to fill that niche than an organization that has proved it can ‘make top-quality toys at a competitive price? Now the ‘marketing team has the task of determining which coun- ries to target, which existing toys will sell, and which new toys need to be developed. 1. Do Jerry and Robert understand what “management of diversity” means? How would you advise them? 2. Considering the marketing plans, how could they benefit from a more diverse management team? Be specific.Real Case: The Ethics of Downsizing Downsizing refers to a company’s decision to reduce its workforce for reasons other than poor perfor- ‘mane, criminal conduct or uncthical behavior on the batt of thoso being lot go. The word is a euphorism meant to soften the blow as much forthe company as it is for the soon-to-be eliminated. There is nothing. wrong with making a difficult task easier to bear. Tn fact, thore are good ethical reasons for doing so, as swe'llsoon see Still there is no getting around the Fact, ‘that downsizing is a type of layoff, with all that this implies. The ethical manager will keep in mind wheat is really going on when he or sho is charged with lot ting good people go, WHY DOWNSIZING IS AN ETHICAL ISSUE Anytime we're faced with a decision that ean affect the rights or well-being of others, we're looking at an ethi- cal issue. No matter how strong the justifications for reducing the workforce are or seem to be. laying off loyal and productive employees is an upsetting experi- ‘ence for all concerned, and those on the receiving end face not just financial but psychological injury. ‘How so? For many of us, the workplace isn't just a place for work: it’s where we develop and maintain ‘some ofthe most important relationships we hee, Dur- ing the week, we spend more time with coworkers than ‘with our families, and for better or worse, work is how many of us define ourselves and give meaning to our lives. Getting laid off compromises all of these things, ‘30 managers should think of downsizing asa deep and ‘so managers should think of downsizing as a deop and painful trauma for those being let go, and not as a mere setback or reversal of fortune. ‘Yes, downsizing has legal implications, and it is ‘understandable that companies want to minimize their liability when they downsize. Yes, there are economic ‘matters to consider, which makes downsizing a manage- ‘ment issue, too. But at its core, downsizing is an ethical issue, and tho good manager is concerned not just with protecting the company’s financial and legal interests bout also with honoring the dignity and integrity of the ‘human beings who work on the front lines and who are the lifeblood of the organization. DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY 1. Do It in Person. ‘This seorns the obvious thing to do, but I'm surprised by the number of reports I've heard about employees who ‘were downsized on the phone or by e-mail. Managers who use this method claim it makes the whole thing eas- ier to deal with. Yes, but for whom? Certainly not for the ‘employee being let go. As uncomfortable as It isto end someone's omploymont, the right thing to do is to have a private conversation with him or her in person. The eth ical principle of respect for others requires nothing less. 2. Do It Privately. [Respecting others means honoring their wishes and val- tues, and it is reasonable to assume that most people ‘would prefer to have troubling news delivered in private, ‘This means in your office, with the door closed. I've hoard (of managers who broke the bad news at the employee's cubicle within earshot of everyone in the vicinity. Again, cone would think that this would be a matter of coramcn sense and common decency, but apparently neither is all that common, 3. Give the Person Your Full Attention. Interrupting the conversation to take phone calls, check your BlackBerry, or engage in other distractions isn't just rude, it tells the other person thatthe matter at hand isn't all that important to you. That’ yet another viola- tion of the principle of respect. The impulse to turn your atontion to less troubling matters is understandable, but long with the privileges of being a manager come along with the privileges of being # manager come responsibilities, and downsizing with integrity is one of the most important obligations you have. 4. Be Honest, but Not Brutally So. ‘Must you always tll the truth the whole truth, and noth {ng but the truth? Yes. if you're giving sworn testimony in a court of law, but beyond the eourtrooen the duty to tell the uth fs constrained by the duty to minimize harm. In practical terms, this means being forthright with the employee but also choosing withthe care the words, tone of voice, and demeanor you use. Compession—literally, “sufforing with” someone honors the dignity of your employee and speaks to the better part of your nature.We can't always meke things better, but we shouldn't ‘make things worse. 5. Don’t Rush. A shock takes time to absorb. Lmagine that your physi- cian says you have a serious illness. Wouldn't you expect him or her 10 allow the news sink in, rather than to summarily dismiss you and call for the next pation? Being let go isn't as serious as getting a diagnosis of cancer or heart disease, but iis stil a major, life-changing event, You cme your employee the space to absorb the information, and you may have to explain more than ‘once what is happening and why. You would demand nothing less iF it were happening to you, and you would bbe right to do so. 1. Do you agroe that downsizing is an ethical issue? 2. Do you agree with the five guidelines for downsizing, ‘ethically? Would you add any others? 3. What if you do not agree with the reason for the downsizing? Ethically, how would you respond? ‘Would you be willing to resign?