Right vs. Right Dilemmas, Essay Example

A long-term vs. short-term dilemma is best resolved through the organization’s communication efforts. Communication is needed for a person to make the most acceptable decision in face of this type of dilemma. Before taking the decision that has a short-term effect, it is important to consult with the people who will be influenced by this decision in order to hear what their opinion is regarding the matter.

Some of the decisions that one makes in the course of doing business might benefit employees in the short-term. However, on the other hand, they might have a long-term negative effect on the company. It takes communication for a central ground to be struck and for the decision maker to make the decision that will leave both parties satisfied.

Through communication, the decision maker will understand the expectations of both parties that will be affected by the decision. The decision maker might be surprised to realize that the concerned parties do not seem to perceive any dilemma in the situation. Additionally, if the right communication strategies are adopted, these people will participate in solving the dilemma and compromises will be struck, thereby paving the way for the best decision.

A good example is a situation whereby as a bank’s loan officer, I felt a strong need to motivate employees working under my supervision by introducing a travelling allowance since they always had to keep incurring travelling costs in order to sell loan products. Although this decision was going to be of help to the employees, it could easily create financial difficulties in the company. All I need to do was to communicate with these employees, present my idea, its benefits and shortcomings. On their part, the employees felt obliged to give their honest opinions and therefore, the communication strategy easily solved the short-term vs. long-term dilemma.

An individual vs. community dilemma is best resolved through the organization’s compensation efforts. This type of dilemma presents an organization with a dilemma between helping an individual vs. helping many people. Each of the decisions taken will have its advantages and disadvantages. Whatever decision is taken depends on the greatest good that will follow from such a decision although compensation efforts will help the aggrieved side party feel that transgressions were made.

This type of dilemma presents a scenario whereby a major sacrifice may or may not be made if a problem is to be permanently solved. In this case, if the decision maker chooses not to make a sacrifice, he has to be clear on what he should do in order to compensate for a sacrifice not made. For instance, one should ensure that by not making the sacrifice, more benefits are going to be realized and that this is the only way through which a problem can be dealt with permanently.

A good example of this type of dilemma came my way when we were engaging in inter-departmental soccer competition within the company that I used to work for. At some point in the course of a soccer game, an opponent was injured. The injury coincided with an opportunity that came my way whereby a ball had been passed to me in a counteroffensive run, and everyone expected me to strike it into the net and score a winning goal.

I was faced with the dilemma of deliberately kicking the ball out of the field in order to make everyone put focus on the injured player or go on and score a winning goal. I chose the latter decision, arguing that I would compensate for not showing concern for a colleague’s misfortune by explaining to him and his supporters the situation that I was in at the moment.

A truth vs. loyalty dilemma is best resolved through adherence to the code of ethics of an institution. Many times, people are faced with dilemmas where they have to choose to either remain loyal to their friends, family, employer, employee and stakeholders or to stick to the code of ethics and the laws that govern the decisions that should be taken whenever such dilemmas arise.

Adhering to the code of ethics is the best way to handle the dilemma. This maintains some sense of stability and professionalism in the job environment. In other words, it is about doing what is expected of you. Failure to do so might bring about more problems as the credibility of the organization might be at risk. People might start perceiving the company negatively just because of some comments that you made regarding some decisions that the institution is about to make in the near future.

When working with a local bank as a vice president, I faced a truth vs. loyalty dilemma whereby the publishing company was planning to lay off some workers in order to reduce costs in the face of the biting effects of recession. All the employees were my friends, and I felt a strong urge to tell them the truth about the fate that awaited them. On the other hand, I was expected to remain loyal to the bank by not releasing information to employees before a formal communication has been made by the relevant authority.

To resolve the dilemma, I chose to discuss the matter with employees covertly. I hinted at the lay-offs in a way that the employees could not relate it to the fate that was going to befall some of their colleagues. When the lay-off announcement was finally made, the employees quickly related what was happening at the moment with what I had been telling them. I was therefore able to end up with a compromise between both ends of the truth vs. loyalty dilemma.

A justice vs. mercy dilemma is best resolved through the organization’s culture. Although there are laid-down procedures on how aggrieved parties should seek justice within an organization, the aggrieved party might face a dilemma whereby an alternative decision, mostly one involving mercy, seems more appealing.

While I was as a vice president of a local bank, I found myself being an aggrieved party whereby a loan officer who worked under my supervision made some professionally unacceptable accounting mistakes. The first impulse was to report the matter to the bank president, in which case she would have been fired with immediate effect.

On second thought, I figured out the life-long mental agony that I would cause this young lady with a promising career. She was an outstanding accountant and I had never experienced any problem with her work. After much consulting among colleagues, I realized she had been going through a difficult time in her personal life and that the loss she had suffered of a boyfriend, a brother and grandmother in a train accident a month ago had severely affected her work and she was yet to get over it.

In such a situation, I found myself with the need to weigh two alternatives, both of which seemed right. It was impossible to argue completely against one of the possible courses of actions. However, the drive to be merciful was stronger and I therefore chose not to report the serious matter to the bank president. I reasoned that anybody in my situation, including my boss would have taken the same decision in such a scenario and therefore I was not jeopardizing my own career in any significant way.