Power and Politics
Fran Gibson was placed in an awkward position when Jennifer Chung, a financial analyst in Ken Hamilton's Department came into her office at 6:45 a.m. to complain about Ken's 'off-color' comments made her when they were alone within a month after Jennifer joined Thompson. According to Jennifer, the situation worsen. Jennifer told Fran that Ken would leer her, put his arm over her shoulder when they were reviewing reports, patted her rear. Jennifer stated that every time one of these occurrences happened, she would ask him to stop it and not to do it again. However, according to Jennifer, it fell on deaf ears. Fran had to decide how to respond to Jennifer's complaint since sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC's guidelines define two types of sexual harassment: "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment." Being the highest ranking woman at Thompson, Fran understood that unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute "quid pro quo" sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or
Nahavandi, A. and Malekzadeh, A. in Organizational Behavior - The Person-Organization Fit stated that power is the ability of one person to influence another. There are five sources of power: legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent. The basis for legitimate, reward, and coercion power is typically the organization; the basis for expert and referent power is the individual. Reactions to power range from acceptance and commitment to compliance to resistance. The authors further stated that the more personal the source of power that is used, the more it is likely to lead to commitment rather than compliance or resistance. A) Fran was also faced with an ethical dilemma: does she do what is right and moral and possible sacrifice long term personal gains or does she turn her back on Thompson and what Jennifer Chung is telling her. Being that Fran is the highest-ranking woman at Thompson, she must decide if she has an obligation to address this issue. B) Ethically, I feel that Fran has a moral obligation to be loyal to Thompson, preventing possible lawsuit, since she has been there 15 years. To that end, she may want to discuss this situation with Ken. Also, Fran appears to strong commitment to being a role model and mentor to other women. If this is the case, then she should do what is right. After all, the case does not imply that Ken Hamilton is the only person that can give her a good reference. C) In this case, the ethical thing to do may not necessary be the politically correct thing to do. If I were Fran, I would discuss this situation with Ken first, in order to allow him an opportunity to address this issue. If he did not want to address it, I would then encourage Jennifer to seek legal recourse. I would follow this course of action because I would feel obligated to assist Jennifer since Fran is the highest-ranking woman at Thompson. Fran also has a political dilemma since she recently was contacted by an executive search recruiter inquiring about her interest in the position of vi
Some common words found in the essay are:
Ms Calhoun, Thompson Fran, Person-Organization Fit, Ken Hamilton, Jennifer Chung, Calhoun EEOC, Airport EEOC, Fran Ken, Rights Act, According EEOC, sexual harassment, ms calhoun, jennifer chung, conduct unwelcome, ken hamilton, woman thompson, thompson fran, verbal physical, address issue, sexual nature constitute, sexual favors, physical conduct sexual, discuss situation ken, offensive environment according, person thompson fran,
Approximate Word count = 1390
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|