'Our department head (and my boss) was a super slacker. We conducted a cue and eventually after gathering much evidence against him, made a callt o the CEO of the company who was out of state.
As stated above this was not received well. We were thought of as deserters. In the end, he got sacked, I moved up, managed the department for awhile before the whole company fell in. Not sure what I DID learn, but I know that wasn't the right way to handle it, even though it seemed so at the time.'(kschroth)
So, we know that person felt obligated to report the manager for bad approach to work, still feels there should have been a better way to deal with the issue. It's clearly a classical example of conflict of values...and how often do we face it? What do you - as a manager - do if one of your team members is not delivering and you're loosing your business? HR procedure would ask you to collect evidence - but the very expression sounds rather unpleasant...would you?
I had to face that challenge myself and even though I felt I acted against my personal feelings I needed to admit that at work I am paid to ensure the work is actually done. I ended up judging the situation objectively, in terms of action>reaction and applied HR procedures. Even if they seem not perfect they are there for a reason, like any other law related rule - must have been developped based on human concensus - just as the liberal ethics is. So I think that was still ethical, but am I right?:)
I am eager to see more responses to Michael's article!