Case Studies

Search Case Studies

All Areas of Concern

Search Case Studies

All Areas of Concern

Staff evaluation

Trades / Industries:

As an administrator, Bernard conducted yearly evaluations of his subordinates. The evaluations were weighed heavily in management promotion decisions.  Recently, two of Bernard’s subordinates Apple and Barry were competing for a new administrative post.  Bernard worked well with Apple but Apple’s performance was average.  If Apple worked alongside Bernard as a peer, she would not challenge Bernard or threaten his position in the firm.  Barry, by contrast, was outstanding; but his tendency to shake things up and push for changes made it very difficult for Bernard to work with.  Foreseeing Barry’s potential in the company, Bernard was worried that his position in the company would be threatened if Barry got promoted.  On the other hand, Bernard also knew that his peer administrators kept average-performing supporters to themselves through the staff evaluation process. 


Should he write a strong annual evaluation for Apple but an average one for Barry?  Between Apple and Barry, who would be better for the firm and who would better off with Bernard?

Case Analysis

Bernard was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as fairness, responsibility and honesty to challenge. In handling the situation, Bernard should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:


  1. Any violation to his professional, industry specific, or company code of conduct?
  2. Is it against the Law?
  3. Does it correspond with his self-values such as fairness, responsibility and honesty?
  4. Can he disclose his decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?


The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving his ethical.

Back To Top