I created a Perplexity Spaces area equipped with ETHICAL mode for decision making. Then, I shared a situation that is all too common in schools and organizations. Wow, what a great response from ETHICAL model via Perplexity Spaces.

Scenario

This is the scenario ETHICAL was presented with:

Jane and John are forced to work together, even though John fails to do any planning or work to prepare for upcoming presentations and events. Jane spoke to her boss several times about it but no discernible action has taken place as a result. And before speaking to her boss, Jane spoke directly to John, but he simply apologized and continued to not do anything. Now the boss (who is also the HR Department since there is no HR) has said to staff, “This is a drama free workplace. You have a problem with someone, deal with them directly.” Analyze this situation using ETHICAL model and recommend a course of action for Jane. Also, analyze the boss’s actions for illogical reasoning/behavior.

ETHICAL RESPONSE

Let’s apply the ETHICAL decision-making model to this scenario.

Engage stakeholders: The key parties involved in this situation are:

  • Jane: The employee who is diligently preparing for presentations and events
  • John: The coworker who consistently fails to contribute to the preparation work
  • The boss: The authority figure who has been informed of the issue, has not taken effective action, and also functions as the HR department
  • Other team members: Who may be indirectly affected by the situation

Think emotionally and logically: Emotionally:

  • Jane likely feels frustrated, overwhelmed, and trapped due to limited options for recourse
  • John may feel complacent or possibly anxious about his lack of contribution
  • The boss might feel overwhelmed with dual responsibilities as manager and HR, and annoyed by perceived interpersonal conflicts

Logically:

  • The team’s performance and work quality are likely suffering due to John’s lack of preparation
  • Jane’s workload has increased unfairly, potentially affecting her job satisfaction and productivity
  • The boss’s inaction and “drama-free workplace” stance may be detrimental to team dynamics and overall performance
  • The lack of an independent HR department removes a potential avenue for conflict resolution
  • The boss’s dual role creates a conflict of interest in addressing workplace issues

Harmonize perspectives:

  • Jane’s perspective: Seeks a fair distribution of work and accountability, but feels limited in her options
  • John’s perspective: May not fully understand the impact of his actions or have underlying issues affecting his performance
  • The boss’s perspective: Wants to maintain a harmonious workplace without direct intervention, but may be overwhelmed by dual roles

To integrate these viewpoints, we need to find a solution that addresses the work imbalance while maintaining a professional and collaborative environment, all within the constraints of the organization’s structure.

Investigate options:

  1. Jane continues to manage the extra workload while documenting John’s lack of contribution
  2. Jane attempts another direct conversation with John, emphasizing the impact on team performance
  3. Jane proposes a formal team workflow process to the boss, indirectly addressing the issue
  4. Jane seeks external advice from a career counselor or workplace mediator
  5. Jane considers looking for employment opportunities elsewhere

Collaborate on recommendations: Based on the analysis, the recommended course of action for Jane is:

  1. Document all instances of John’s lack of contribution, including specific dates, tasks, and impacts on the team’s work.
  2. Request a formal meeting with the boss to discuss team productivity and workflow, framing it as a concern about overall team performance rather than an interpersonal issue.
  3. Propose implementing a project management tool or system that clearly outlines tasks, deadlines, and individual responsibilities for all team members.
  4. If the situation doesn’t improve, consider seeking advice from an external career counselor or workplace mediator for strategies to navigate this challenging environment.
  5. As a last resort, if the work environment continues to be detrimental to Jane’s well-being and career growth, she may need to consider seeking employment elsewhere.

Authorize decision: While Jane can initiate these actions, the final decision on how to address the situation within the organization ultimately rests with the boss. Their decision should be based on:

  • The documented evidence of the work imbalance
  • The impact on team performance and project outcomes
  • The need to maintain a productive and fair work environment

However, Jane has more agency in deciding her own course of action given the limited organizational structure.

Launch implementation: To execute this decision:

  1. Jane should begin documenting John’s lack of contribution immediately
  2. Schedule a meeting with the boss within the next week to discuss team productivity
  3. Research and propose a project management system that could benefit the entire team
  4. Set a timeline for implementing new workflow processes and evaluating their effectiveness
  5. If necessary, Jane should allocate time to explore external career advice or job opportunities

Analysis of the boss’s actions:

The boss’s statement, “This is a drama-free workplace. You have a problem with someone, deal with them directly,” is particularly problematic given their dual role as manager and HR:

  1. It demonstrates a failure to fulfill both managerial and HR responsibilities
  2. It creates a significant conflict of interest, as the boss is both the source of the problem (by not addressing John’s behavior) and the designated problem-solver (as HR)
  3. It leaves employees like Jane with no internal recourse for addressing workplace issues
  4. It potentially violates labor laws or regulations that require proper channels for employee grievances
  5. It risks creating a toxic work environment that could lead to increased turnover and decreased productivity
  6. It oversimplifies complex workplace dynamics by labeling them as “drama”
  7. It abdicates managerial responsibility to address performance issues
  8. It fails to recognize that direct communication has already been attempted without success
  9. It potentially creates a culture where legitimate concerns are suppressed
  10. It ignores the impact of individual performance on overall team productivity

This situation highlights the challenges of small organizations without dedicated HR departments. The boss’s approach is not only illogical but potentially harmful to the organization’s long-term success. A more appropriate response would involve:

  1. Acknowledging the complexity of workplace dynamics
  2. Taking an active role in addressing performance issues
  3. Implementing clear, fair processes for conflict resolution
  4. Considering external HR consultants for complex issues to avoid conflicts of interest
  5. Prioritizing the creation of a positive, productive work environment over avoiding “drama”

In conclusion, Jane should focus on documenting the issue, framing it as a team performance concern, and proposing systemic solutions. If these efforts prove ineffective, she may need to seek external advice or consider other employment options.

The boss’s actions reveal significant flaws in the organization’s structure and management approach, which may require broader changes to address effectively.