Case Study Memo
Case Study Memo Format
Date: 3/4/2013
Subject: Employee Gambling and Productivity
Case Summary
The ethical decision-maker in this case, Dr. Quaid Jefferson, Division Director of Vital Statistics, is faced with the dilemma of allowing his employees to place bets on horses and hold office pools in the face of decreased productivity. On top of that, he participates in an annual football pool, which is illegal in his jurisdiction, while horse betting is not.
The stakeholders in this decision include the employees, the department, and the general public.
Analysis
According to the aspect of virtue in Svara’s Ethics Triangle, a good person would first not be doing anything illegal like the director is doing. Secondly, a good person would analyze the situation and see that if employees are not being productive, which means they are not serving the constituents who pay to them be there, then the horse betting should end.
The principles that apply here are integrity and honesty. An ethical approach in this situation would involve realizing the consequences if the public were to find out about the employees and find out about the director’s illegal activity.
Possible Solutions
One possible solution in this situation would be for the director to end the football pool, and only allow the horse betting to take place on one day during the week. The advantages to this solution are that morale in the office could be preserved, and the risk of the director’s activity would be alleviated by his termination of the football pool. The disadvantage to this solution is that the employees are still doing something that may be perceived negatively by the public.
Another solution would be to end the football pool and end the horse betting. This would make it fair for both the employees and the director. Also, the public would not have to know what was going on while their tax dollars were at use. The disadvantage to this is that office morale may be
Date: 3/4/2013
Subject: Employee Gambling and Productivity
Case Summary
The ethical decision-maker in this case, Dr. Quaid Jefferson, Division Director of Vital Statistics, is faced with the dilemma of allowing his employees to place bets on horses and hold office pools in the face of decreased productivity. On top of that, he participates in an annual football pool, which is illegal in his jurisdiction, while horse betting is not.
The stakeholders in this decision include the employees, the department, and the general public.
Analysis
According to the aspect of virtue in Svara’s Ethics Triangle, a good person would first not be doing anything illegal like the director is doing. Secondly, a good person would analyze the situation and see that if employees are not being productive, which means they are not serving the constituents who pay to them be there, then the horse betting should end.
The principles that apply here are integrity and honesty. An ethical approach in this situation would involve realizing the consequences if the public were to find out about the employees and find out about the director’s illegal activity.
Possible Solutions
One possible solution in this situation would be for the director to end the football pool, and only allow the horse betting to take place on one day during the week. The advantages to this solution are that morale in the office could be preserved, and the risk of the director’s activity would be alleviated by his termination of the football pool. The disadvantage to this solution is that the employees are still doing something that may be perceived negatively by the public.
Another solution would be to end the football pool and end the horse betting. This would make it fair for both the employees and the director. Also, the public would not have to know what was going on while their tax dollars were at use. The disadvantage to this is that office morale may be