1. Explain how you would handle this situation if you were Charles Renfold.
It is always hard to predict one’s behavior in the times of a crisis. Being caught off guard by Darlene Lambert, Charles Renfold did not have a prepared response to her claim. However, it is possible to suggest that he was not able to evaluate the situation well enough. Being overwhelmed by the urgent work, he did not realize the depth of the smoking problem in Redwood Associates. Indeed, he tried to smoothen the conflict by explaining his point of view to Darlene Lambert, yet he was not able to predict that such actions would only worsen the situation. As Darlene realized that Charles Renfold was not willing to address the issue, she refused to perform her work. However, if Renfold took the problem more seriously, the consequences could have been much less severe. He should have promised Darlene Lambert to take actions in order to protect the non-smoking employees in the company. By explaining the time constraints for the requested report, and by showing his willingness to have a dialogue and support Darlene, Charles Renfold could have avoided a major conflict. Although the case does not give us information about the consequences of his behavior, it is possible to imply that the refusal of Darlene Lambert to enter the main file room led to the delay in the report as well as to the general disappointment of the non-smoking employees. Therefore, if I were Charles Renfold, I would have tried to assure Darlene Lambert in my concern about the working conditions of every employee. I would then try to explain her the urgency of the report and the consequences of the delay for Redwoods Associates. In the next step, the issue would have been brought up to the top management, in order to make the necessary corrections into the company’s policy. In case no changes are possible in the company’s policy, Charles Renfold should address the employees, trying to convince them to smoke outside of their offices. Such approach could give fast, yet effective results without the necessity to formalize the changes through modifying in the company’s policy.
2. Describe the policy on smoking that you would recommend to Redwood Associates.
There is no perfect solution for the Redwoods Associates regarding their smoking policy. While prohibiting smoking on the premises can be demotivating and discriminatory for the smokers, not setting boundaries might significantly affect those, who do not smoke. Therefore, it is crucial to find an intermediate solution for the company, which would satisfy both sides.
Although Redwood Associates has already made an effort to accommodate the needs of both smokers and non-smokers by establishing smoke free areas in the building, the example of Darlene Lambert clearly shows that the measures taken by the company are not sufficient. Taking into consideration that some of the employees have to work in various parts of the building, there is no guarantee that non-smokers will not be forced to spend time in the smoking areas. Thus, when Darlene Lambert had to work in the main files room, where smoking was allowed, she was constantly irritated by the smell of cigarettes. Such conditions not only significantly hinder productivity of the non-smokers, but also may have negative consequences for their health due to an effect often called “second hand smoking”. However, on the other hand non-smoking policy may cause discomfort for those, who are used to smoke on regular basis. Redwood Associates should be extra careful with setting smoking limitations, as it may have negative impact on the work results of the smokers and might even cost the company some of the highly qualified staff.
In order to approach this issue, it is crucial to identify the side, who suffers most. Since non-smoker often cannot tolerate being in the smoking rooms, it is important to make sure that they only work in the non-smoking environment. On the other hand, working in non-smoking rooms has no effect on the productivity of the smokers. Therefore, Redwood Associates should guarantee designated smoking areas, instead of establishing smoke free zones. Such areas should not be located in the rooms, which are used by all the employees or in the offices. Instead, they should be only used for smoking. In this case, those employees who need to smoke during working hours will have a place to do it, while all the others will not be bothered by the smoke and the smell of cigarettes. Having adopted such a policy Redwood Associates will create acceptable working conditions for all its employees, without sacrificing the interests of either party.
3. Explain how this case would change if what bothers Darlene is not old smoke but the smell of Alice’s perfume or Frank’s body odor.
Smoking has to be addresses very seriously due to the fact that even inhaling the smoke of the cigarettes may harm peoples’ health. Therefore, it is important to make sure that those who smoke do not harm all the non-smokers. The situation is quite different with the perfume or body odor. Although either of the two may be quite disturbing, they do not pose a threat to the health of people around. Moreover, restricting the use of a certain perfume or criticizing body odor will limit personal freedom of the employees and it will be highly discriminatory. Therefore, in order to avoid hostile reaction of the staff and for the sake of preserving tolerance and good relationships among employees, it is crucial to emphasize that diversity is highly appreciated and never restricted in Redwood Associates. In case, perfume or any other odor is disturbing for a number of employees, it might be helpful to resolve the situation through a friendly conversation among the staff.
4. Explain whether it is fair or reasonable for companies to ban employees from smoking in their cars in the company parking lot.
It is not possible to find a universal solution for the problem of smoking in the parking lots. On the one hand, prohibiting smoking in the cars in the parking lot may be necessary due to safety reasons. Highly flammable substances, such as fuel, may catch fire from a cigarette, causing damage to the cars and endangering employees. Smoking restrictions may also be a response to the complaints of the non-smokers, who have to walk through the parking lot to their cars. As the smoke of the cigarettes is released into the air, all the people in the parking lot have to inhale it. However, smoking in the cars influences non-smokers much less than smoking in the building. The smoke dissociates in the open air, doing little harm to the people around. Therefore, companies should consider all the related issues, including parking lot safety and the number of complaints from the non-smokers, before banning smoking in the company’s parking lot.
References
Shaw, W. H. (2010). Business ethics: a textbook with cases. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
