Case of the Lifeguard, Case Study Example

In the case context, a lifeguard, Jennifer Payden, was fired by her supervisor for abandoning her assigned post unattended to save the life of a swimmer who was drowning. The actions by the lifeguard went against the company policy, which severe bearded consequences that cost her job. According to their supervisor, she was compensated fully for her time and actions, but the policy stipulates that such actions need to be punished. Jenifer was required to call paramedics to handle the situation since she left the company and the city to face serious legal liability actions by abandoning the assigned zone.

Based on the ethical dilemmas I have learned in class, the perspective for Jenifer would have been motivated by bending the rules in her favor for the company. The strong reaction and viral nature for loosing life on a lifeguard’s watch who cannot save the life based on the company policy motivated her to through away the rule book which would not compromise the essence for receiving training. The prominent role is not to follow rule books but save lives. If the swimmer died on her watch, the company would face severe public and media action. This ethical perspective by Jenifer explains the Utilitarianism perspective.

In this case, Jenifer’s significant strengths are being an extreme observer; she can anticipate consequences and be firm with her actions. The major weakness for her is she is a weak communicator as she fails to explain her actions to the supervisor which would have convinced him why her actions was good for the company. On the other hand the supervisor lacks the leadership skills to assess situations before making decisions and taking actions but possess strong stance to adhere to company policy.

The moral perspective which would explain Jenifer not abandoning her post to save a life would be justice views. In this perspective, the primary driver for individuals’ actions will always be observing the rules and universal principles. The individuals would always be impartial with their actions, and the verifiable manner that drives their actions is limited to company policy.

The best action for this case context is to balance employer and employment risk with the reality. It is not always that the rule book will act in favor to the company. In this context, adhering to the rule book would have been very costly to the business if the swimmer’s life had not been saved.