Evaluating Rico

Instructions:
Please read the case then you are expected to prepare 1 page concise written response to the questions posed below…

Give a brief ethical analysis of the reasoning of all four of the committee members
Was Daria really being honest? Explain
Was Clarence truly deceptive? Explain
Was Zelda honest or deceptive? Explain
Of the four members of the committee, whose position do you favor? Why?
Of the four members of the committee, whose position do you think is the weakest? Why?
If you were the division manager, what would you include in your written report to those who will make the ultimate decision?
Would you recommend any organization-wide changes in the procedure used to make the merit raise?

Evaluating Rico

“Rico is a 20-year employee of a public organization. His job performance has been steady but unspectacular, and he has received few merit raises in his career. He is now being considered for such a raise. The process requires an advisory review by his peers and a recommendation from the director of his division. Margo, the director, calls a committee meeting to discuss Rico’s case. The committee consists of the four peers, who will give their collective advice to Margo, a nonvoting member. The committee members are to evaluate Rico according to a four-level rating system. The top rating is “outstanding,” followed by “good,” “fair,” and “poor.” Clarence, who favors Rico’s candidacy for the raise, acknowledges that he is not outstanding but also realizes that a rating of “good,” though accurate, will hurt his chances considerably. He therefore votes to give Rico the “outstanding” designation. Daria accuses Clarence of deception. She likes Rico and hopes that he gets the raise, but believes that it would be dishonest to give him a falsely high rating. She believes that to do so would unfairly hurt the chances of worthier candidates. She also argues that, if divisions regularly rate favored candidates more highly than they deserve, rating inflation will result and the entire rating system will become meaningless. Clarence does not respond happily to the implication that he is being dishonest. In response, he argues that it is Daria, rather than he, who will mislead the higher levels of the organization. He argues that the inflation that Daria is worried about has already taken place, so a rating of “good” will naturally be interpreted as “fair” and will unjustly damage Rico’s candidacy. Daria concedes that “good” will likely be taken as a lower rating than she intends, but she argues, “Just because everyone else is being dishonest, it doesn’t mean that we should be. I must be true to my own principles even if I am consequently misunderstood.” Clarence replies that principles must be applied in context, and in the context of traditional rating procedures in the organization, a principle of honesty would require an approving “outstanding” rating rather than a “kiss of death” rating of “good.” Quentin, a third member of the committee, agrees to the “good” rating, but for reasons different from those of Daria. He has rated other candidates of Rico’s quality as “outstanding” but does not get along well with Rico. Since the case is so close, Quentin applies the “kiss of death” willingly. Of all of the members of the committee, Zelda has the lowest opinion of Rico’s job performance. If she were to rate him objectively, she would give a “fair” rating. However, she believes that his many years of service entitle him to a significant raise, and she strongly decries a system in which dedicated, though average, workers should consistently be given only cost-of-living increases, which often fail to keep up with inflation. She therefore gives Rico an “outstanding” in the hope that he will receive just remuneration for his average, but consistent and lengthy, service. She also argues that Rico would be discouraged if he were turned down, and she does not want him hurt. Furthermore, she argues, if Rico’s morale suffers, his performance may suffer also, to the detriment of the entire organization. Of the four members of the committee, whose position do you favor, and whose do you find weakest? In answering that question, note the values implicit in your own reasoning. If you consistently display similar concern for those values in other examples, your degree of respect for those values may constitute part of your ethical style. Give a brief ethical analysis of the reasoning of all four of the committee members. Can you discern characteristics in their reasoning in this case that may also recur in other cases? If so, those characteristics may be parts of the ethical styles of the members. In your analysis, consider the following questions: Was Daria really being honest? Was Clarence truly deceptive? Was Zelda honest or deceptive? If you were the division manager, what would you include in your written report to those who will make the ultimate decision? How would you represent the deliberations from which the ratings emerged? Would you recommend any organization-wide changes in the procedure? Would you set any new rating guidelines for your own division members concerning future deliberations and rulings? If you have participated in a similar rating procedure in the past, was your reasoning similar to that of any of the four committee members? Does consideration of Rico’s case cause you to rethink your decisions in those cases? How do you think you will decide in similar cases that you might encounter in the future?”