A.Inara and Warda are heads of departments in SHMP Sdn Bhd.They worked together in two separate offices.Inara is attached to the Classy department while Warda is attached to the Queen Department.Their staff developed trust issues between the two departments. This peaked in an email from Warda to Inara raising concerns about how their staff were working together.The two offices had a service agreement, which led to perceptions of power differences.At the same time, there was an expectation of professional collegiality and relationships based on equality of professional qualifications.

An unnatural slience appeared to have descended on the two departments that created further hardening of positions and animosity.The staff commented that the level of trust between the two offices had diminished significantly.They reported that staff were leaving phone messages, notes and mail messages rather than speaking to each other directly.They reported that this sometimes lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the tone and intention of the messages. Staff from both offices were also having others deliver a message for them even when there were present in the same office as the recipient.The high level of frustration this caused resulted in some instances when staff "shouted" at each other.

Warda, who wrote the email, felt uncomfortable with the staff from the Classy office telling her staff what to do.Warda also reported that in some cases, the staff criticized and even yelled at them when they believed things were not being done properly. Warda felt that they should have brought their complaints to her, while Inara had a philosophy of resolving differences at the lowest level.

There were also philosophical differences between the two offices about the nature of their roles and responsibilities and the best approach required for their clients.Each side accused the other of not seeing the big picture.There was also a diference of opinion between the two offices about which client information could be treated as confidential, and which i nformation was necessary to share with the other office staff. Confidentiality had been promised to a client, and then became a source of argument in a particular case. Staff safety was implicated in thsi decision. Other concerns also existed which led to problems around sharing information and trust. There were also concerns about insufficient consultation between the offices prior to decision making, with decisions being released that could potentially affect the safety of staff in the other office who were unaware of the decision.This led to a climate of guardedness around information sharing.

REQUIRED:

(a)Identify 3 conflicts that existed between the two departments, Queen and Classy.

(3 Marks)

(b)Explain 3 possible causes of such conflicts between the two departments above

(3 Marks)

(c)As the heads of department for the two conflicting departments, suggest 2 ways that Inara and Warda could take in order to resolve the conflicts.

(4 Marks)

B.Ejaz became Chief Financial Officer and a member of the Executive Committee of a medium-sized and moderately successful family-owned contracting business six months ago.The first non-family member to hold such a position and to be included in the Executive Committee, he took the job despite a luch-time remark by the company's CEO that some members of the family were concerned about Ejaz's 'fit with the company culture'.However, the CEO (who married to the daughter of the founder of the company) said he was willing to give Ejaz a chance.

Soon after Ejaz started, the company decided for the first time to 'right-size' to respond to rapid changes in its business. Ejaz, who had been through this before when he was a senior manager in his previous company, agreed this was good for the long-term health of the 20-year-old company.He decided not to worry that family members seemed more concerned about their own short-term financial interests.

Besides, the CEO was relying on Ejaz to help him determine how to downsize in an ethical manner, the CEO said he trusted Ejaz more on this than he did the head of his personnel department, who had 'been around a little too long'.

On Ejaz's recommendation, the company decided to make its lay-off decisions based on the annual performance appraisal scores of the employees. Each department manager would submit a list of employees ranked by the average score of their last three appraisals.

If the employee had been with the company less than three years, if the score for two employees was identical, or if there was some extraordinary circumstance, the manager would note it and make a decision about where to rank the person. At some point, Ejaz and the Executive committee would draw a line, and those below the line would be laid off.

As Ejaz was reviewing the evaluations, he was puzzled to find three departments in which the employee at the bottom of the list had "N/A" where the evaluation score should have been written.When he asked the managers to explain, they told hime these employees had been with the company alomost since the beginning.When performance appraisals had been instituted six year earlier, the CEO agreed to the longtime employees' request that they keep receiving informal evaluations "as they always had".The managers told Ejaz they had questioned this decision and the CEO had told them it was not their problem.

When Ejaz raised this issue with the CEO, he responded, "Oh, I know. I haven't really evalauted them in a long time, but its time for them to retire anyway.They just aren't performing the way they used to.The company's been very good to them.They 've got plenty of retirement stored away, not to mention the severance you've convinced me to offer.They're making pretty good money, so cutting them should let us lower the line a little and save jobs for some of the younger people..you know, young kids with families just starting out.And don't worry about a lawsuit. No way they would do that."

" Do they know they're not performing well?" Ejaz asked.

" I don't know," the CEO responded. "They should. Everybody else in the compnay does."

As they walked to the door, the CEO put his arm around Ejaz's shoulder. " By the way," he said, "you should know that you 've won over the Executive Committee.They think you are a terrific fit with this company.I'm glad you talked with me today about these three employees. You got it right. This is a company that cares for its employees as long as it can and as long as they're producing.Always has, always will."

Ejaz left CEO's office with the vauge feeling that he had some moral choices to make.

REQUIRED:

(a)State, providing TWO (2) justifications, if Ejaz has an ethical dilemma.

(5 Marks)

(b)Recommend TWO (2) actions that would be the right move for Ejaz to take.

(5 Marks)