You're having lunch with your old college friend, Casey Mansfield. He's now the VP of Operations for In the House, a mid-sized organization that repairs gently-used household items to resell to low-income families. Casey manages a team of six employees; together, they oversee the inventory, coordinate the repair process, and partner with local non-profits that resell the items. He enjoys his job and works long hours to help the organization achieve its mission.

In the House recently brought in a new CEO to turnaround the company after a few years of low performance. The new CEO, Amy Peterson, worked with Casey and the rest of the leadership team to revise the mission statement. They developed the following mission and principles:

In the House is committed to making sustainable living accessible and affordable for everyone, one repaired item at a time.

We do this by staying true to our principles:

People: We are dedicated to improving the lives of low-income families by providing them with quality, affordable household items that enhance their comfort and quality of life. Our employees are at the heart of our organization, and we prioritize their well-being, personal development, and job satisfaction.

Profit: We recognize that financial sustainability is crucial to achieving our mission. We strive to operate efficiently and profitably, ensuring the long-term viability of our business, allowing us to expand our reach and help more families in need.

Planet: Our commitment to the planet extends to reducing waste and promoting sustainability. By refurbishing and reusing household items, we contribute to the reduction of environmental waste and carbon footprint.

In the year he's worked for her, Casey has found Amy to be good boss - firm, but fair. Upon her arrival, she met with each member of her leadership team and gave them an option to leave the company. If they left, she would provide a nice severance package to give them the opportunity to find a new job. If they stayed, be ready to work hard and be held accountable for the performance of their division. Some stayed, some didn't; Amy has even fired a couple of VPs due to poor performance.

That's partly what makes Casey's decision so difficult, and why he's invited you (his close friend) to lunch for advice. Casey is unsure how to handle a situation with one of his employees.

"Alex is a long-time employee of our company," Casey starts explaining. "He was one of the company's original hires, and he's led multiple projects for us, always performing at a high level. He's even been a mentor to a couple of the other members on our team, and has received multiple employee recognition awards during his time with the company." In fact, Alex has been instrumental in all facets of the operations at In the House. He's formed relationships that have led to long-term suppliers, and he knows the key players at the companies that buy your products.

However, for a little over a year, Alex's performance has declined. He's frequently calling in sick, showing up late for work, making errors, and missing deadlines. While team members try to cover for him, they can't do his entire job and theirs. As a result, several projects have suffered setbacks.

Without going into detail, Alex has shared with Casey some of the personal struggles he's currently facing - family issues (elderly parents, troubled college kids, etc.) causing financial difficulties and leading to Alex's lackluster performance.

"So what are your next steps," you ask Casey.

"Well, I don't know," Casey admits. "I'm hoping you can give me some advice."

After reading the case:

1) Name this section 'Identification of Dilemma' and address the following (limit to 1 page):

• What is the overall ethical dilemma?
• What are the relevant facts of the case?
• Which stakeholders are impacted by the dilemma?

2) Provide a brief overview of 2 Frameworks (Approaches) to Managerial Ethics (1+ pages per framework). Name this section 'Ethical Frameworks'. Name each sub-section after the ethical frameworks you choose.

• Choose from: Utilitarian, Deontology, Self-Interest, Rights, Justice, Social.
• The textbook and lecture provide general explanations for the approaches above. Expand on these with external sources. Use in-paper citations and list the additional references at the end of your paper.
• This section of your paper should not reference the case. Instead focus on what you've learned (researched) regarding each ethical approach.

3) Provide outcomes to this ethical dilemma (2+ pages). Name this section 'Evaluation of Ethical Dilemma'. Address the following in this section:

• Based on what you've learned about the case, which framework (from the two you've explained in the previous section) do you believe should guide Casey in this situation?
• What are the implications of this decision (who does it benefit? What are the positive implications? What are the negative implications?)
• If you had been guided by the other framework addressed in section 2, what would have been the positive and negative implications?
• There's no right/wrong answer choice for this sub-section, so I won't grade this on your ability to choose a particular ethical perspective. Instead, I'm more concerned with your ability to describe why you chose the approach. This will help me assess whether you understand the concepts.
• No need for additional outside resources in this section, as you should refer to the case and the information provided from section 2.