MEMBERS:

Amadeo, Donalyn
Baran, Jonalie
Libato, Reyna Mae
Ofancia, Jobe Glonette
Sanoy, Hane Marie

CASE ANALYSIS:
Tom Leyson, one of the field sales managers of Major Tools Works, Inc. was promoted
to his first headquarters assignment as an assistant product manager for a group of
products with which he was relatively unfamiliar. Shortly after he undertook this new
assignment, one of the company’s vice president Nick Reyes called a meeting of product
managers and other staff to plan marketing strategies. Leyson’s immediate superior, the
product manager, was unable to attend, so the director of marketing, Jeff Englis, invited
Leyson to the meeting to help orient him to his new job.

Because of the large number of people attending, Englis was rather brief in
introducing Leyson to Nick Reyes, who, as vice president, was presiding over the meeting.
After the meeting began, Reyes-a crusty veteran with a reputation for bluntness-began
asking a series of probing questions that most of the product managers were able to
answer in detail. Suddenly he turned to Leyson and began to question him quite closely
about his group of products. Somewhat confused, Leyson confessed that he did not know
the answers.

It was immediately apparent to Englis that Nick Reyes had forgotten or had failed to
understand that Leyson was new to this job and was attending the meeting more for his
own orientation than to contribute to it. He was about to offer a discreet explanation
when Reyes, visibly annoyed with what he took to be Leyson’s lack of preparation,
announced, “Gentlemen, you have just seen an example of sloppy staff work, and there is
no excuse for it.”

Englis had to make a quick decision. He could interrupt Nick Reyes and point out that
he had judged Leyson unfairly; but that course of action might embarrass both his
superior and his subordinates. Alternatively, he could wait until after the meeting and
offer an explanation in private. Inasmuch as Nick Reyes quickly became engrossed in
another conversation. Englis decided to follow the second approach. Glancing at Leyson,
Englis noted that his expression was one of mixed anger and dismay. After catching
 Leyson’s eye, Englis winked at him, as a discreet reassurance that he understood and that
the damage could be repaired.

After an hour, Nick Reyes, evidently dissatisfied with what he termed the “inadequate
planning” of the marketing department in general, abruptly declared the meeting over.
As he did so, he turned to Englis and asked him to remain behind for a moment. To Englis
surprise, Reyes himself immediately raised the question of Leyson. In fact, it turned out
to have been his main reason for asking Englis to remain behind. “Look” he said, “I want
you to tell me frankly, do you think I was too rough with that kid?”. Relieved, Englis said,
“Yes, you were. I was going to speak to you about it.”

Reyes explained that the fact that Leyson was new to his job had not registered
adequately when they had been introduced and that it was only sometime after his own
outburst that he had the nagging thought that what he had done was inappropriate and
unfair. “How well do you know him?” he asked. “Do you think I hurt him?”

For a moment, Englis took the measure of his superior. Then he replied evenly, I don’t
know him very well yet. But I think you hurt him”. “Damn, that’s unforgivable,” said
Reyes. He then telephoned his secretary to call Leyson and ask him to report to his office
immediately. A few moments later, Leyson retuned, looking perplexed and uneasy. As he
entered, Reyes out from behind his desk and met him in the middle of the office.
Standing face to face with Leyson, who was 20 years and four organization levels his
junior, he said, “Look, I’ve done no right to treat you like that. I should have remembered
that you were new to your job. I’m sorry”.

Leyson was somewhat flustered but mutter his thanks for the apology. “As long as
you were here, young man,” Reyes continued, “I want to make a few things clear to you in
the presence of your boss’s boss. Your job is to make sure that people like myself don’t
make stupid decisions. Obviously, we think you are qualified for your job or we would
not have brought you in here. But it takes time to learn any job. Three months from now
I will expect you to know the answers to any questions about your products. Until then,
“he said, thrusting out his hand for the younger man to shake, “you have my complete
confidence. And thank you for letting me correct a really dumb mistake.
Answer the case above based on the format below:
1. Ethical issues in the situation
2. Who are affected and how it affect to the persons involved:
3. Alternative courses of action taken or to be taken by:
a. Person makes unethical conduct b. Persons affected
4. Consequences of each alternative
5. Appropriate action
ETHICAL ISSUES/ PROBLEMS IN THE SITUATION

As per definition of ethics in good governance, it is a set of moral principle or values that
govern the actions and decisions of an individual or group. In this case analysis, the ethical
issues given in the situation were the following: Discrimination and harassment, toxic
workplace, and the abuse of leadership authority. Tom Leyson, a newly appointed for the
position as the assistant product manager for the group of products got humiliated by the
company’s vice president, Nick Reyes in front of his co-workers. Stated that he was an example
of a sloppy staff worker, which had hurt Tom’s feelings.
As stated above, discrimination and harassment in the situation refers to which, Tom
Leyson got scolded in front of the product managers and other staffs, saying that he himself is a
sloppy worker and was lacking for preparation, without even considering that Tom Leyson was
new to the position and was only attending the meeting on behalf of his immediate superior
and to help him orient on his new job. Next, toxic workplace culture can be referred to Nick
Reyes behavior as a leadership which is unethical. A leader like him who just directly jumps into
conclusion, a type of leader who pressures employees or business associates for favors), will
think nothing of disrespecting and bullying their employees, which have happened to Tom
Leyson. Lasty, the abuse of leadership authority is an abuse of power often manifests as
harassment or discrimination. However, those in a leadership role can also use their authority
to pressure employees to skip over some aspects of proper procedure to save time (potentially
putting the employee at risk), punish workers who are unable to meet unreasonable goals, or
ask for inappropriate favors, which can also be observed to Nick Reyes behavior towards Tom
Leyson.

PERSONS INVOLVED AND HOW IT AFFECTED THEM

The people affected in the case were, Tom Layson, Jeff Englis and Nick Reyes. Tom
Layson got affected in a way that he was the one who has been the subject of the ethical issues
and the unethical behavior of the vice president’s behavior which is, Nick Reyes. On the other
hand, Jeff Englis was affected in a way that, he was the one who invited Tom Layson for the
meeting for the orientation and was quite embarrassed of Nick Reyes behavior which have
insulted Tom Layson in front of everybody. Moreover, Nick Reyes was affected in a way that, he
felt guilty of his action which was inappropriate and unfair and think that his demeanor was
unforgivable.
ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF EACH
ALTERNATIVES
We all know that employees do not like to be yelled at. Also, frequent angry outbursts
damage between the boss and employee relationship. Often, the employee will take necessary
steps in the future to prevent the wrath of their boss that leads to a breakdown in workplace
communication not only for the boss and the employee, but for the organization. For them to
be an effective and successful leader, they must understand the importance of anger
management in the workplace. A leader must learn to express all their emotions appropriately.
Specifically, they must learn to manage their anger and use it sparingly and with the intent of
solving a problem for the sake of the organization.
When anger is used, it should be done in a way that it maintains the respect for
individuals, not saying anything that is demeaning, inappropriate, exaggerated, or untrue.
Person who makes the unethical conduct and persons who were affected, should take the
following steps action: Organizations should be encouraged to implement training programs to
help managers improve their leadership and interpersonal skills and curb abusive behavior in
the first place. To bolster moral attentiveness, organizations could provide ethics training
programs to encourage employees to regularly reflect on their misbehavior at work.
Additionally, organizations can also establish standards for apologies and forgiveness by
instituting policies that encourage employees to be morally courageous and to proactively
make amends for any misbehavior. It is also suggested to list consequences for unethical
behaviors. In which, the consequences for unethical behaviors should also be placed alongside
the rules at strategic places in the organization. Hence, in that way, if anyone wants to ignore
the rules despite of being seen, the fear of getting punished will stop him or her from further
doing so.

APPROPRIATE ACTION
Implement training programs in terms of anger management help managers improve
their leadership and interpersonal skills and curb abusive behavior in the first place. To bolster
moral attentiveness, organizations could provide ethics training programs to encourage
employees to regularly reflect on their misbehavior at work. Through this training, they will be
able to effectively manage their anger. Since, controlling anger is important when in a
professional work environment. You and your employees need to learn to let the little things
go. Urge employees to avoid getting fixated and annoyed with things out of their control.
Instead, they should learn to understand their triggers; maybe there is a particular provoking
colleague or situation that gets them worked up. If you notice an employee often getting angry
at work, you should engage in a one-to-one meeting, where you can discuss anger management
techniques that might be beneficial to them.