Electropic LLC is a respected and profitable website design and hosting company in Colossal Corporation's technology group. Melissa Aldredge has been a project manager at Electropic LLC for several years and was recently considered for promotion to a senior project manager position. Ultimately, the promotion was awarded to another long-term employee, June Pyle. June and Melissa have a history of one-upping each other and sharing an internal rivalry within the company.

Melissa recently reported internally that she had learned that June, who was given the promotion over her, had never finished her MBA degree. All of June's business cards have "MBA" after her name, and the signature line of her email reads "June Pyle, MBA."

Electropic LLC's policy manual states that potential employees must submit transcripts for all degrees listed on their resumes. However, this requirement was not in place 10 years ago when June Pyle was hired. June has a history of stellar performance and was promoted not because of her MBA, but because of her consistently exemplary work. June has received excellent performance evaluations during her time at Electropic LLC, and her leadership has led to increased revenue as well as positive press for the company. Her record of success is what led to her promotion.

As a result of Melissa's report, the director of human resources sent an email to all employees who were hired prior to the policy change requiring transcript validation, asking that they provide transcripts to validate their credentials. June did not respond to the director's request for transcripts and was called into the director's office. In a very tense and tearful interview, June confessed to the director that she does not have an MBA. She admitted that she was 12 credits away from completing her degree, but when her dad got sick, she had to drop out. She said that she really needed a job to support her family and she put the MBA on her resume hoping it would help her find a job. She shared that she always intended to go back to school but became so busy with work that she didn’t have time. Once she was hired, she felt that there was no turning back and she had to keep the lie going by placing "MBA" in her email signature line and on her business cards.

An MBA was not a requirement for the assistant project specialist job June was hired for 10 years ago, but four years ago, it was made a requirement for the senior project manager position she holds now. Two of the current senior project managers do not have MBA degrees because they were promoted before this requirement was in place.

Vice President Dodger has asked you to write a memo with your recommendations on how human resources should handle this issue. June has a record of excellence with Electropic LLC, and her superiors would be unhappy to lose her; however, ethical practice and the law must be considered here as well.

Badaracco's right versus right framework

Badaracco’s Right vs Right Framework

There are a variety of ethical frameworks that may be used instrumentally to analyze those difficult questions that businesspersons must regularly address. Some ethical issues present clear yes or no answers, a clear right and wrong, but other ethical issues are much more difficult to address.

Professor Joseph Badaracco developed a framework for addressing those more difficult questions, and particularly those questions of "right versus right"; that is, when an ethical dilemma could result in multiple "right" responses, based in attempted adherence to multiple, conflicting ethical values that cannot simultaneously be fulfilled. Badaracco's framework aims to resolve ethical dilemmas involving conflicting yet legitimate moral values.

Step 2:

Résumé Fraud

Fraud, often called misrepresentation, is a very broad legal concept that incorporates a variety of types of fraud and misrepresentation, both civil and criminal. There are considerable variations across the states as to the specific categorization of types of fraud as either civil or criminal law violations, or both. The federal government criminalizes a variety of types of fraud including mail and wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and securities fraud. These federal laws apply to everyone in the United States, regardless of the state in which the fraud occurs. Although there is variation as to which explicit types of fraud are criminalized within each state, in all states, some types of fraud unquestionably carry both civil and criminal penalties.

Résumé fraud is a specific type of fraud that may result in civil or criminal penalties, or both, depending on which state the fraud occurs in. In its most primal form, résumé fraud is a type of common law, civil fraud wherein the intentional misrepresentations of material facts are made in a résumé, and justifiably relied upon in the hiring of an individual for employment. In the absence of any statutory provision specifically addressing résumé fraud in a given state, the common law provides the remedy for résumé fraud typically in the form of damages (monetary compensation). However, many states have statutorily imposed sanctions specifically for committing résumé fraud. For example, in New Jersey, both persons and legal entities are prohibited from intending to deceive by falsely representing the receipt of a degree, credential, or certification, which one has not actually acquired "in connection with any business, trade, profession or occupation" (N.J.S.A. 18A:3-15.2). A violation of this provision is treated as a civil law violation, and each instance of résumé fraud carries with it a $1000.00 civil fine (N.J.S.A. 18A:3-15.5). On the other hand, in the state of Kentucky, "fraudulent use of an educational record" is considered a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 12 months in jail and fines (KY Rev. Stat. Ann. 434.442). The Kentucky statute explicitly includes making false written representations for certain educational achievements, such as a degree, in employment applications. The states do differ as to how they treat résumé fraud, but whether it is treated as a civil violation or as a criminal violation, résumé fraud is a dishonest practice that should be avoided.

At-will employees should be particularly aware that résumé fraud provides a justifiable basis for termination that may undermine otherwise legitimate arguments for wrongful discharge (or other exceptions to the employment at will doctrine). For contract employees, résumé fraud is often considered "just cause" for termination of an employee who would otherwise be protected from termination by contractual "just cause" provisions. Finally, in addition to the legal consequences of résumé fraud, the reputational damage of lying on a résumé could undermine one’s career prospects as it did for former Yahoo CEO, Scott Thompson, whose résumé represented that he had a double major, including a degree in computer science, from Stonehill College, a degree that was not awarded from until several years after he graduated. After being exposed by a Yahoo shareholder, Thompson stepped down from his position in disgrace (Mackay, 2012).

Employment at will is a doctrine of common law that allows either the employee or the employer to terminate an employment relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without notice, and even for a morally reprehensible reason, so long as the ending of the relationship does not fall into an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

Employment at will is the prevailing legal doctrine concerning employment relationship termination in 49 US states (not Montana). In the overwhelming majority of the United States, employment at will and its exceptions govern the rules by which one may legally terminate an employee.

The generally accepted exceptions to employment at will include

· express contract,

· implied contract,

· promissory estoppel,

· public policy violations, and

· good faith and fair dealing.

We discuss these five exceptions below.

Express Contract Exception

If an employer terminates an employee in violation of the terms of an express contract between the employer and employee, then the employee can sue the employer for breach of contract (and, in some states, wrongful termination).

For example, an employment contract guarantees that the employee will be employed by the employer for a definite duration of time, with cognizable boundaries, such as a "one-year period" or "for six months." The employer terminates the employee before the stated period has expired, and that termination is not otherwise permitted by the contract.

Likewise, consider a case where an employment contract states that an employee can be terminated only "for cause" or "for just cause," and the employee is terminated without cause.

Implied Contract Exception

Implied contracts are contracts created by the conduct of the parties, which include any representations or assurances made by the employer prior to or during the term of employment. In some states, an implied contract is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

For example, if an employer provides an employee handbook to a new employee, the provisions in the handbook may be considered part of the contractual relationship. Often, such handbooks outline a procedure for performance review, discipline, and discharge of the employee. An employer who fails to live up to procedural obligations prior to discharging an employee could be liable.

Promissory Estoppel Exception

In many states, promissory estoppel acts as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. That is, when an employer makes a promise to an employee of employment or a period of employment, and the employee relies on that promise to his detriment, and it leads to injustice, then an employee may be able to have that promise enforced regardless of employment at will.

For example, John is offered a job with Widget Co. He discusses with Widget's manager that, to take the job, he needs to move from California to New Jersey and give up an already lucrative position with benefits. The manager assures John that he will have gainful employment and a substantially larger income with Widget Co. for at least a year if he makes the move. In reliance on this promise, John quits his job and moves to New Jersey to begin work at Widget Co. After one week, John is laid off. Despite being an employee at will, John may be able to recover under the theory of promissory estoppel.

Public Policy Violations Exception

Most states in the United States prohibit an employer from firing an employee if the reason for the action violates some readily accepted public policy. This prohibition prevents an employer from terminating an employee for exercising a legal right, including a right contained in state and federal laws; or for failing to perform an illegal act for the employer.

Firing an employee for performing some public duty (showing up to jury duty), for exposing illegal conduct (such as reporting violation of some law to the employer or a government agency), or for exercising her rights as a US or state citizen (such as voting) are all against public policy.

This exception to employment at will encompasses the inability to terminate an employee if doing so would violate her state or federal statutory rights. If an employee is terminated because of her race, this may be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and so an otherwise at-will employee would have a claim against the employer for violating a federal statute.

Moreover, it is against public policy to terminate an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act, such as a crime.

Good Faith and Fair Dealing Exception

A minority of states impose upon the employer a duty to exercise good faith and fair dealing in regard to all employees. This doctrine, to varying degrees, means that an employer must treat an employee fairly in the decision to fire her. This generally means that an employer would violate these duties in firing an employee without due cause or justification.

The preceding five generally accepted exceptions to employment at will allow injured parties to seek recovery even in the face of the employment-at-will doctrine. As such, they limit the circumstances by which an employer can terminate an employee.

Licenses and Attributions

, by TheBusinessProfessor.com, Jason M. Gordon & Colleagues has been adapted with permission from Jason M. Gordon. © Business Professor, LLC. 

Step 3

References and Citations

In your papers, you should provide sufficient, correctly cited support that substantiates your ideas.

Even research papers only use sources as support, not in lieu of original thought from you, the essay's author. Use sources that enhance your ideas, but don't let other people's work stand in for your own. If you're writing or presenting a research assignment, don't just assemble other people's ideas. Think of your sources as your big brothers backing you up in a fight, but not going in the melee instead of you. You should connect what you're writing to the source material, and then explain the source material's relevance. Don't let a quote just hang there unexplained, and never end a paragraph on someone else's words. Always, always tie up a quote with your own words.

You need to be fair and accurate: don't take quotes out of context or spin summaries to suit your own purposes. If the material you want to use doesn't really support your point, find other material that does.

The Graduate School standard is APA documentation. Reference your sources appropriately and accurately (not by the source's first name, for instance, and not by only one name if it was a group project). If you don't know APA documentation, check your APA guide, or go to the UMGC library, or search online for the example you need. Many people find the idea of citing or of using a particular format stressful, but it needn't be. It's finicky, and it's nitpicky, but it's really just following a template. If you can follow a recipe, you can follow these guidelines.

Step 4:

Global Shippers, Inc.

One of Colossal Corporation's import-export companies, Global Shippers, Inc., a New York–based company with facilities in over 37 countries including the United Kingdom, recently submitted a bid for an exclusive contract with the government of the small country Neristan. The contract would provide Global Shippers with the exclusive right to export goods from Neristan's government-owned factories to the United States for distribution and sale. It is projected that this contract would provide over $20 million in revenue to Global Shippers per year, increase its stock value, and allow the company to expand its international operations and employee base.

Shortly after Global Shippers submitted the bid, Neristan's prime minister invited the CEO of Global Shippers, Robert Manning, to dine with him at the most luxurious restaurant in Neristan.

After Roger arrived to the dinner, the prime minister ordered the most expensive bottle of wine on the menu, and as they drank, he made a proposal to Manning. The prime minister said, "Here in Neristan we value relationships above all else, and we have a great opportunity to help each other." He went on to say that he was recently tasked with "selecting the best company for Neristan's contract," and he thought that "Global Shippers has what it takes."

Manning was excited by the prime minister's comments. He agreed, "There is the potential here for a great relationship." Manning gratefully accepted the prime minister's offer of another glass of wine and listened intently. The prime minister then went on to say, "It is customary in Neristan for business associates to help each other prosper, and if you ensure a payment of $100,000 is wired to my personal account in the next week, I will make sure that Global Shippers gets the contract."

Manning, who had dealt with similar requests from other foreign diplomats in the past, responded, "I'm afraid that such payments are prohibited in my country, but why don't I fly you to New York tomorrow so we can discuss business further?" Manning went on to say, "The trip will be all expenses paid, and you will stay in the penthouse at the finest New York hotel. If, after we are done conducting business, you want to see the sites, I can show you around the city, and you can stay on us for a while."

The prime minister gratefully accepted Manning's offer, and Manning paid the $3,500 bill for the dinner and wine on his corporate account. The next day the two flew first-class back to New York. After conducting business in New York for a day, the prime minister and Manning traveled around the city, went to the theatre on Broadway, and dined in the finest restaurants. Everything was paid for by Manning's corporate accounts. After several luxurious days in New York, the two of them then flew first-class to Los Angeles, where, after several days of "living it up on the town," they met with Global Shippers Inc.'s board of directors, and the prime minister announced that Global Shippers had been awarded the contract. The prime minister stayed in Los Angeles, all expenses paid, for two weeks after this meeting, and then flew back to Neristan.

In the meantime, upon the announcement of the contract acquisition, Global Shippers Inc.'s stock skyrocketed, and the company began hiring more warehouse employees in Neristan and the United States to manage its new lucrative contract. Manning received a substantial bonus from Global Shippers Inc.'s board of directors for his excellent work related to acquiring the Neristan contract.

Six months later, the first shipment of goods was ready to leave Neristan and go to the United States, but the customs officials on the Neristan border refused to allow the goods to leave the dock. The customs officials stated that they needed time to inspect the goods for illegal contraband and that it could be weeks before they were cleared for shipment. Manning, who was visiting the prime minister at the time, was called to the customs office by his head warehouse employee. Manning slipped the customs officials $100 each and asked if they could expedite the shipment. The goods were cleared the next day, and the first shipment left for the United States.

A few weeks later the prime minister of Neristan was arrested by Neristan authorities for embezzling government funds. Manning began to worry that some of his actions may have crossed the lines into illegal or unethical activity and (given his close relationship with the prime minister) that he may soon also become the subject of investigation. He called the vice president at Colossal Corporation, told him the whole story, and asked him if he could help defend the legality and ethics of his actions.

Step 5:

International Business Laws, Ethics, and Regulations

The arena of international business law is highly complex and largely polycentric in nature. Its major components are international treaties, regulations and principles of international organizations (both soft and hard laws), customary international law, and domestic laws with extraterritorial reach. The laws of other nations also come into play when one is conducting business on an international or even global scale.

Given the complexity and variety of sources of international business law, it is of particular importance for you to seek expert assistance when dealing with problems or other matters in an international context. Companies often choose to partner with local constituents when expanding internationally to gain localized knowledge and market share.

Management in the global arena involves addressing unique and difficult issues of culture and morality. Although general ethical frameworks may help you to assess management decisions in a cross-cultural context, there are unique questions that arise in global settings. The resources below provide guidance for situations involving conflicting ethical norms and customs of different cultures within the business context.

How an organization addresses unique situations involving ethics and customs will impact its success in the global arena. The first subtopic examines the role of ethical theory in global business. The second subtopic examines the role of cultural theory in global business.

Country Cultural Differences

In workplaces, as in communities and nations, people spending time together are likely to share certain values, attitudes, and beliefs. Because of this established culture, people at work may have developed certain preferences or orientations in the following situations:

· interacting and communicating with others

· working in teams

· making decisions

· responding to and evaluating risks and opportunities

· managing or attempting to resolve disagreements and conflicts

· interacting with those at different levels in the organization

· engaging in numerous other workplace activities

Those who have studied and compared societal cultures and their possible implications for the workplace have identified some differences that can be important for success.

Perhaps the leading expert on cultural differences and their potential implications for business is Geert Hofstede, a Dutch scholar who worked for IBM in the late 1960s. Hofstede's early research (1980) examined, compared, and categorized the culturally derived preferences of IBM employees in many countries. He, and other scholars who have followed in his path, created a classification scheme that differentiates country cultures across what were originally four dimensions, though they have since been expanded to include six.

In what is probably his best-known book, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (published first in 1991 and revised and republished in 2010 with his son Gert Jan and Michael Minkov), Hofstede presents a careful explanation of his work and its implications. Hofstede reminds his readers that "culture is learned, not innate" (p.6), and introduces the analogy of culture as "software of the mind."

Hofstede uses the layers of an onion to help convey the way culture manifests itself. Values are deep at the core or center of the onion and are very slow to change compared with the other manifestations of culture. Examples of common core values in US businesses include integrity, accountability, fairness, and excellence. Other layers of culture include our rituals (e.g., greeting with a firm handshake and direct eye contact), the heroes we honor (examples include Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs), and on the outside of the onion, the symbols that have special meaning for societal members.

Examples of U.S. Business Cultural Manifestations

Created by Christina Hannah

Using an analogy of culture as mental programming, Hofstede explains that we are each conditioned (or programmed) by multiple societal levels: national, regional, ethnic, religious, linguistic, gender-oriented, generational, socioeconomic, and professional. Values associated with these levels may or may not be in harmony. One consequence of these multiple sources of programming is that it can be difficult to predict what will influence a person's response or behavior in particular situations.

Our present interest is not in delving deeply into the causes and consequences of individual differences in values, attitudes, and beliefs, but rather to learn about those shared at a societal level. Hofstede explains that his extensive research, and that of others who have studied culture, make it possible to differentiate between and among national cultures using a set of dimensions. He originally proposed the first four dimensions in the list below, then added a fifth—long-term orientation (Moskowitz, 2009)—and later added indulgence as a result of further research by and insights from collaborators.

Here is a simple explanation of Hofstede's current six dimensions:

· Power distance (PDI)—In countries with a high power distance dimension score, we can expect those in lower level positions to respect or defer to those who outrank them. In other words, power is thought to come with position. In such cultures, employees may expect managers and leaders to make decisions and might be surprised or uncomfortable when asked for input. In countries with a low power distance score, we are likely to find that employees treat those they report to more as colleagues and hold the view that respect must be earned. There may, of course, be exceptions to this model (for example in military and paramilitary organizations). Not surprisingly, the United States's score on this dimension is relatively low at 40. The score for France is is 69. In comparison, the scores for Malaysia, Slovakia, Guatemala, Panama, the Philippines, and Russia are all above 93 (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 57-58). This means that, in general, we can expect employees in the United States to expect a more egalitarian workplace than may be true in other societies.

· Individualism or collectivism (IDV)—In countries with high scores for individualism (like the United States), you are likely to find a shared belief in developing strong individuals who are comfortable working and making decisions on their own. In such workplaces, you will probably find an emphasis on the importance of developing, recognizing, and rewarding individual contributions. In countries that score low on the individualism dimension, you are likely to find an emphasis on the community, team, group, or department (i.e., the collective). People may be embarrassed if they are singled out publicly for praise or recognition, because they strongly believe their success depends upon the support and work of others. For this dimension, the US score is the highest, at 91. The score for France is 71. The country with the lowest score is Guatemala, with a score of 6 (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 95-97).

· Masculinity and femininity (MAS)—The label used for this dimension may not be the best. The basic idea is that some country cultures place a relatively high value on competitiveness, assertiveness, achievement, etc. Such countries are given a high score for masculinity because these preferences and traits were historically associated with men more than women. Other country cultures place greater value on caring for others, cooperation, quality of life, etc. Such countries are given a high score for femininity on this dimension. Despite the problems with these unfortunate gender-based labels, when you step back and compare countries you will probably recognize that there are some where businesses seem to value competition over cooperation, achievement and success over quality of life, and so on. Japan has a masculinity (MAS) score of 95. The US score is moderate at 62. The score for France is 43. Sweden has the lowest score for this dimension, with a 5 (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 20110, pp. 141-143).

· Uncertainty avoidance (UAI)—This dimension recognizes that there are differences among countries, which results in differences among the leaders of businesses that operate therein and the extent to which they are willing to take risks. In countries that are low in the uncertainty avoidance dimension, business leaders might be very comfortable exploring new opportunities and see this as the likely path to success. In other countries, this may not be the case. Sometimes those in country cultures that are highly risk averse (with high uncertainty avoidance scores) have a very good reason for their responses. There may be, for example, significant legal penalties for failure, including the possibility of being sent to jail in the event of bankruptcy or reneging on debts. The country with the highest score for uncertainty avoidance (UAI) is Greece at 112. France is relatively high, with a score of 86, and the US score is 46, indicating a tolerance for uncertainty and acceptance of risk-taking to achieve success (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 192-194).

· Long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO)—In countries with a high long-term orientation score, shared work values emphasize learning, accountability, and self-discipline. Patience and waiting to make a profit are acceptable. Creating and nurturing lifelong networks is valued. In contrast, those favoring a shorter-term orientation tend to focus on "the bottom line" and value achievement, freedom, and independent thinking. Quarterly and annual profitability are important. Korea, Japan, and China have high long-term orientation scores (100, 88, and 87, respectively). France has a moderate score of 63. In contrast, the US LTO score is low, at 26 (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 255-257).

· Indulgence versus restraint (IVR)—In countries with high scores on indulgence, you are likely to find people who value having fun and enjoying life. In the United States, for example, it is common to find that employees emphasize the importance of a good work-life balance and quality of life. The IVR score for the United States is relatively high (68) and for France is moderate (48). Pakistan has the lowest score (0) among the countries studied. Territories with the highest indulgence scores are Venezuela (100), Mexico (97), and Puerto Rico (90) (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 282 – 285).

A very important caveat when reading and thinking about Hofstede's work is to remember that the comparisons are at the societal level, rather than the individual level. In other words, in any country you will find individuals who are different from what you see suggested as the norm for the country culture. In fact, for any given dimension you may find yourself thinking "but this isn't what I'm like" or "this doesn't explain what happens in my organization." Those who have studied and compared country cultures ask you to suspend these responses temporarily and to try instead to look at a country as a whole, and then consider how it compares on these dimensions with other countries. When you adjust your imaginary lens to consider cultural differences from a broader perspective, you are able to discover things that may be helpful when explaining what happens when companies do business abroad, when people work together on country teams, and when they work together in multicultural, multinational organizations.

One challenge is that we are often less knowledgeable about our own shared country culture than we are about the cultures of others (Hofstede, 1980). This is because our culturally derived values and preferences are so deeply embedded that we may not be aware of how they influence our decisions and behaviors. Those who have worked or studied in a country other than their own are likely to have developed higher levels of cultural intelligence than those who have not had this experience.

The United States has traditionally tended to place strong emphasis on equality, individualism, risk-taking, assertiveness, achievement, and the opportunity to enjoy life (pursuit of happiness).

This brief introduction to the comparative work on country cultures and their potential consequences for individuals and their organizations, along with the Resources below, should help you understand the possible sources of confusion or conflict that could, if not anticipated and well-managed, result when multinational and multicultural team members work together. These issues may include training, coaching, mentoring, and effective leadership. Remember to consider as well the possible advantages associated with building and using teams with members who bring different country cultural perspectives to their work (Chakrabarti, Gupta-Mukherjee, & Jayaraman, 2009).

Step 6: