Relevant Facts
One of the relevant facts of this essay is that Chris is a management trainee at Commerce Trust Bank, where he has been working for almost two years and he desires promotion from his traineeship so badly. Secondly, the bank is staffed by inexperienced employees, and the occurrence of errors is almost inevitable. Another relevant fact is that Carole is a new employee of the bank, and the working of the system is still very new to her. She is said to have overpaid one of the bank’s best deposit clients by $900, which leaves her solely responsible. It’s also a relevant fact that the financial error was detected by Chris, depicting his already gained experience in finance. Even though, it could not be ascertained who was in possession of the money, between Carole and the identified client. It was made more difficult by the client in question, as she denied having been given any extra money, a point that was reinforced by her alleged allegiance to the bank. Considering that Chris had earned reckonable praises and recommendations from his superiors, this situation puts him in a really awkward position, being his last phase to promotion. Carole on the other hand risks losing her job.
Ethical Issues
Several ethical issues come out of this situation. First, it’s against work ethics that the bank could employ and maintain inexperienced employees within one branch, who would certainly be entitled to committing errors. Why would a bank, in possession of people’s wealth concentrate inexperienced employees within a branch and expect that everything would be okay, still so, under the stewardship of a management trainee? In addition, it questions the ethics of a bank that Carole who is barely one week old from school, could be left to run transactions solely, without close supervision; it’s not surprising that she encountered a shot. Can the bank
ascertain that they have already gained confidence in her? Do they already trust her? Do they believe in her limited experience? It’s also unethical for Chris to think of debiting one of the customer in question accounts, with the missing $ 900, raising the question of his credibility if affirmed a full bank manager.
Primary Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders of the bank include:
- Chris, a management trainee, who was in charge of supervising Carole at the point when she experienced the shot
- Carole, in this case having been the custodian of the missing money
- the customer who owns the account of the disputed transaction and, (iv) the personnel department, which is in charge of employments and sacking employees.
Possible Alternatives
Chris considers possible alternatives to solve the issue at hand. First, he is considering an option of debiting one of the accounts of the customers in question, to cater for the lost cash. This solution is however unethical, considering that he is seeking a managerial position in the bank. Is that the practice he will adopt for such cases in the future? Chris could also consider putting the loss in temporary suspense account, in which case, the bank could undergo the loss, but Carole saves her job. Another possible solution is informing the personnel department, as required by their policy, whereby Carole would be fired, and the money registered as a loss for the bank! It’s a dilemma for Chris but he has to depict his capacity to solve it as an aspiring manger. What if Carole would accept liability and reimburse the bank the $900 in which case, she would secure her job, as well as Chris’s? Although a taxing responsibility for Carole who is still building her career, it is a possible alternative that can be considered by the parties involved to amicably solve the problem. Whichever way, Chris as an aspiring manager must authenticate the destination of the lost money, through whichever possible means, considering he has been under traineeship for two almost years, and deduce a way of solving this dilemma. This could be his leeway to his desired promotion!