The Transsexual Flight Attendant

Everyone, with conflict of interests, are pushing Matthaus into the corner, how is he going to bail himself out of this plight?
 

 Matthaus,the CEO of Catty Airlines, is facing a critical ethical dilemma. In the company, there was found a transgendered employee working. Jojo, a flight attendant of the company, was found to be a man before a transsexual operation that changed her sex 10 years ago. Whilst the secret has been discovered in the company, there are voices from different stakeholders.

The majority of the employees in the company feel uncomfortable working with Jojo, they united into a strong force  pushing the company to take actions. Expressing their feelings to Matthaus, they asked for a transfer of Jojo's job to the administration department which needs less interaction with colleagues and customers. The employees are also against Jojo in fear that she would  harm the image of everyone working in the company; they are afraid that they would be stereotyped.

However, during the meeting with the Board of Directors, a serious concern on the reputation of the company was raised. The BOD worried that the company might get into trouble with sex discrimination if  'her' job was shifted. Also, as there were no similar law cases in Hong Kong as reference to follow, it would be risky for the company to take any actions upon the issue. Therefore, the BOD objcted to the idea of shifting Jojo's position.

The increase in concern of the public also attracted media attention, a press conference was held . In the conference, Matthaus was asked whether the company would shift the position of the transgender which may violate the Sex Discrimination Ordinance. Also, the company was requested to declare its position clearly on the issue, whether it accepted transgender workers or not.

After struggling for some time, Matthaus fianally decided to shift Jojo to the administrative position. At the end, the issue was put to the court. Jojo sued the company for discriminating 'her' sexual status which didn't affect 'her' performance. Matthaus is the one who needed to defend the company's decision on shifting 'her' job position. He should argue for the company that the decision of shifting Jojo's position was not based on discrimination.

In such embarrassing situation, Matthaus is stressful in making good balance between the employees' morale and the company image. Is it ethical to put the “victim” away so that everyone at work would feel better and the victim would feel less stressful? Or it is good to do nothing and keep the image of the company of sex orientation diversity?

Theory

Business nowadays can hardly survive by “doing business” alone. CEOs must get the company involved in Business Ethics, which comprises principles and standards defining what is right or wrong and guide the behaviour in the business world(). However, the world is not black or white; sometimes it is hard to define whether it is right or wrong. What is right or wrong in business ethics is determined by the key stakeholders. Different moral philosophies become the basis for making ethical decisions.

People believe in teleology make decisions based on consequences. If an action taken would receive a desired result, then the action is morally acceptable and worth doing. In our case, if Matthaus is a teleologist, he would consider the result of both sides. Once Matthaus decides to transfer Jojo, he might put the company at risk of discrimination. However, if he does nothing on that, employee morale might drop thus harm the productivity of the company. Treats and paying employees well are the most significant factors affecting customers’ choice of company (Fleishman-Hillard; National Consumers League, 2007). Any of the decisions would have negative effects on the company's  image. Neither of them would help the company.

                        Source: (Fleishman-Hillard; National Consumers League, 2007)

If Matthaus takes the deontology, which focus on the rights and intentions instead of consequences, he would make the decision regardless of the utility. He might probably reject to transfer Jojo as it may lead to discrimination. The basic human right should be respected for people with different sex orientation. Therefore, with this philosophy, Matthaus would turn down the request of other employees and remain Jojo in the same positions as long as Jojo's performance was not affected.

It is interesting to see there are no absolute right or wrong answers for ethical issues; it all depends on the value of the decision maker. According to the model of ethics, the link leads the sources of ethical guidance to an individual’s believe of ethic is called “Type I Ethics” and the link determines the consistence of an individual’s action and his/her belief is called “Type II Ethics”(Note week 4, PPT2-11). If one wants to enhance the link between the sources of ethical guidance, he/she needs to strengthen both Type I and as Type II Ethics.

Source: (Note Week4, PPT2-11)

Type I Ethics is the spirit of ethical behaviour, such as respect for human dignity, respect for basic rights, and good citizenship (Donaldson, 1996, p. 54). It is the same principle for the company to translate the core human values into core values for business (Donaldson, 1996, p. 54). However, only giving out spiritual ideas can hardly be specific enough to make sure employees work towards the company's desired behaviour. By strengthening Type II Ethics, the company can increase the consistency between employees’ behaviour and belief. It can then turn the ethical spirits into the actual behaviour measurement so that employees can clearly understand what behaviours are desired and ethical.

Conclusion

The ethical dilemma faced by Catty Airline is critical. It would negatively affetced the company's business if it is handled inappropriately. Whatever decisions the company made, it has to have strong and convincible explanations to protect the company. Other than focusing on how to handle the problem, it is more interesting to look at how to prevent or prepare for any similar cases coming out. It is more important for the company to have all employees working towards the same ethical belief as the company so as to reduce conflicts and dissatisfaction arisen from ethical dilemmas.

Reference

Donaldson, T. (1996, Septmeber - October). Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home. Harvard Business Review , pp. 48-62.

Fleishman-Hillard; National Consumers League. (2007). Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility.