Question

Imagine that you are a manager at a consumer products company. Your company is in negotiations for a merger. If and when the two companies merge, it seems probable that some jobs will be lost, but you have no idea how many or who will be gone. You have five subordinates. One is in the process of buying a house while undertaking a large debt. The second just received a relatively lucrative job offer and asked for your opinion as his mentor. You feel that knowing about the possibility of this merger is important to them in making these life choices. At the same time, you fear that once you let them know, everyone in the company will find out and the negotiations are not complete yet. You may end up losing some of your best employees, and the merger may not even happen. What do you do? Do you have an ethical obligation to share this piece of news with your employees? How would you handle a situation such as this?

300 words

Answer 1

A manager does have an ethical responsibility to look out for the best interests of his/her team, however there is also the obligation to the company that has to be considered and the second must supercede the first in this case.

As a manager you do have an ethical obligation to inform your team of any pertinent news however you should only do so if sharing that information will provide a positive outcome for all. In this case, the merger is still in negotiations stage leading you to assume an uncertain outcome. Telling the team of the merger can have negative consequences for you, them, other employees who come to know and the organisation (seriously impacting the merger). There is also the possibility that the negotiations might not result in a merger (either independently or as a result of revealing the information) in which case the damage done will be irreparable as morale and productivity drop and employees flock to find other jobs.  

Employee loyalty can be seriously damaged however if important changes are not communicated by managers however as the outcome is by no means certain, there might not be an important change that needed to be communicated.

The Fairness ethical approach might dictate that everyone should be treated equal and as such should have the same information to be able to make decisions, however in this case the Utilitarian approach is better in that it instructs us to consider the 'greater good' (Brown university, 2020). To ensure this, the news of the merger negotiations must not be shared until approved.

While it is not possible to warn the subordinate who is buying a house without jeopardising your obligation to the company, you could advice your mentee to accept the lucrative job offer he/she has received - the offer appears a better alternative right now and as a mentor you can highlight that without revealing any key information. This way, at least one of the team members will be safe and if the merger does go through, it might be easier to save a smaller team from being pink-slipped - that is of course, if the occasion should arise.

References :

Brown University (2020) A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions