Having an employee with signs of vindictiveness and manipulative traits in the workplace is a major challenge for any organization. In the case under analysis, the employee who displays the identified negative attitudes might not seem as trustworthy when stating that another employee has breached corporate ethics. The specified accusation seems particularly dubious given the other employees’ otherwise perfect record. Although it might seem sensible to dismiss the claims made by the vindictive employee, one must consider all parties with equal respect and conduct an appropriate investigation.
The described situation represents a seemingly impossible ethical conundrum. While Katherine is forced to rely solely on the unsupported claims of an employee that is known to be manipulative, dismissing it would imply workplace discrimination. Indeed, by refusing to consider this employee’s statement, Katherine will demonstrate that his credibility is lower than that one of the other staff members, which represents a breach of corporate ethics and democracy principles (Crane et al., 2019). However, by believing the employee and taking action against the accused one, Katherine will be making judgments based on unsubstantiated claims. For this reason, a meticulous analysis of the situation will be needed.
First, Katherine will need to determine whether the discrepancy in the amount of drug under analysis points to its recent misuse. Then, she will have to communicate with both staff members separately. Talking to the vindictive employee and asking him about the details of the incident, Katherine will have an opportunity to test whether he tells the truth. Namely, noticeable inconsistencies in his story will point to the possibility of him lying. Afterward, the accused staff member will have to be interviewed to determine whether the story is true (Crane et al., 2019). If the employee does not confess and insist on her innocence, Katherine may confront her with the located evidence, such as missing drugs. If the accused employee persists in her claim of innocence, Katherine will have to examine the workplace environment and ask the rest of the staff whether recent tensions in the relationships between the two staff members in question have recently been observed.
Overall, if no other evidence proving the incident is located, the issue should be addressed in a more subtle manner. Specifically, Katherine will have to explain to the vindictive employee the importance of having factual evidence with which to prove his statements. Afterward, Katherine will have to observe the relationships within the team, while also keeping an eye on the accused staff member’s actions (Crane et al., 2019). Supposing the incident repeats with more evidence available, the accused woman will have to be fired from the job since her violation of corporate ethics has nothing to do with the vindictiveness and overall unpleasantness of the other employee.
Despite the immediate urge to dismiss the claims that the vindictive employee makes, a manager must examine all available evidence and make a decision based on whether the accusation was actually true. Therefore, it is recommended that Katherine should talk to both employees separately, while also obtaining every piece of evidence that she can find. Specifically, data from security cameras should be considered first to determine whether the statement was true. If the vindictive employee told the truth, Katherine should stake appropriate administrative measures against the employee at fault by firing them and, possibly, reporting the incident to the police. If the vindictive employee told a lie, Katherine should fire him and advise the wrongfully accused one to take this matter to court. Thus, justice will be restored.
Reference
Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L. (2019). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, USA.