Allen Mooneyhan

Politics of Education

Case Study
Ethical Reasoning Model
Merit or Mercy?

Dr. Mitchell Holifield

Arkansas State University

June 14, 2001

Merit or Mercy?

This case involves an educational community in which employees are willing to help those who are in need.  Teddy Clemens is the principal over this close-knit group of faculty.  He has been made responsible for picking several teachers to receive merit raises.  Teddy has asked that the faculty become involved in the selection process, but they are unwilling to participate directly.  As the faculty considers the choice to be his, Teddy ask them for suggestions on who should be given merit raises.  He is surprised when they indicate that Ann should receive a merit raise.  Ann is a young teacher who has experienced a disastrous year personally.  Despite the fact that she has not had a satisfactory year teaching, the faculty has suggested her out of sympathy.

The ethical issue to be evaluated in this case revolves around who should receive merit raises.  Should Ann receive a merit raise based on the fact that she has the greatest need, or should the merit raise go to individuals who earn them through outstanding performance?  Although Ann had not performed satisfactorily, other faculty want her to receive a merit raise.  Should the beliefs and recommendations of other faculty be a determining factor in the decision?

The claimants in this case consist of those who are involved in and are aware of the merit pay situation as well as those who are not.  Ann is the teacher who stands to benefit from a merit raise in spite of the fact that she has not performed satisfactorily this year.  The other faculty have a stake in the decision in that they want Ann to receive a merit raise this year.  The students are a factor in the decision because if merit raises are seen by employees as requiring above satisfactory performance, students may benefit from higher quality teacher performance.  The principal will be affected as his decision may affect his relationship with the faculty.  Finally, the institution, including the school board, deserves consideration because merit raises, if properly administered, may increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its organization.

Each of these claimants would probably prefer that the situation be handled somewhat differently.  Ann would probably enjoy an increase in salary although she may not support it being a merit increase.  Other faculty probably would like to see Ann receive the merit raise.  The students may have no preference and probably are unaware of the situation regarding a possibility for a merit raise.  The principal probably wishes the faculty had taken a more active role in actually selecting those who would receive merit raises.  The indication for the institution is that it would likely benefit from merit raises which are carried out as they were designed to be implemented.

These preferences lead to at least three possible courses of action in this situation.  First, the principal could simply select Ann as one of the faculty to receive a merit raise.  This might be justified because the teachers were asked to make suggestions and chose to make Ann their choice.  Second, the principal could disregard the recommendation of the faculty and not select Ann to receive a merit raise.  This would uphold the integrity of the merit raise process but may cause some of the faculty to feel resentful.  Third, the principal could select Ann to receive a merit raise but explain to her and the other faculty members why she had received it.  A possible justification for this action may be that the faculty had voiced their opinions and were to be included in the decision-making process.  Each of these courses of action would probably fulfill the expectations of some claimants while leaving others disappointed.

It appears that the second course of action, that the principal disregard the recommendation of the faculty and not select Ann to receive a merit raise, is the most appropriate.  Merit raises are designed to motivate employees to work toward better performance.  If Ann is given a merit raise based on sympathy, the principle of merit raises to compensate for hard work is undermined.  Therefore, the remainder of this work will focus on the action of disregarding the faculty recommendation and selecting others who are more deserving in terms of performance.

The decision to give merit raises to other faculty members instead of Ann will be evaluated through the five lenses of the ethical reasoning model.  First, care prompts one to ask the question:  Am I fulfilling my duty as a caregiver with this decision?  Second, Utility refers to whether the decision provides for the greatest good for the greatest number of claimants.  Third, justice revolves around fairness in asking the question: Are the burdens and benefits equitably distributed?  Fourth, rights focuses our attention on the rights of each of the claimants.  Fifth, categorical imperative indicates a willingness that this decision be used in the future in like situations.

Focusing on the lens of care requires one to evaluate whether care has been given to each of the claimants.  This decision provides proper care for Ann, the students, the principal and the institution.  The indication is, however, that proper care has not been shown the other faculty.  Faculty were asked for suggestions and, upon submitting those suggestions, they were disregarded by the administrator.  However, following their recommendations may indicate a failure to provide proper care in ensuring that those who work for merit raises receive them.  For the most part, the ethic of care supports this course of action.

Under the lens of utility, this decision yields the greatest good for the greatest number of claimants.  The decision would not initially be good for Ann but would probably be good, at least in the long run, for the other faculty, students, the principal, and the institution.  The faculty and institution will probably, eventually, benefit from an understanding that the only way to receive merit raises is for one to improve his or her performance.  This could lead to greater benefits to students in terms of improved instruction.

Under the lens of justice, this decision does not appear to be fair.  This is because the burdens and benefits are not distributed equitably.  Most of the burden falls upon Ann who has continued working despite disastrous circumstances which she cannot control.  Conversely, the benefits lie with other faculty members who stand to receive merit raises, students who may receive greater instruction, and the principal and institution who will have a more proficient faculty.

The lens of rights indicates a potential violation of the ethical rights of the other faculty members involved in this situation.  They have a right to expect their principal to consider their recommendations.  Further, the principal has an obligation to listen to suggestions from the faculty when he solicits those suggestions.  On the other hand, the rights of Ann, the students, the principal, and the institution have not been violated by this decision.  Therefore, under the lens of rights, this decision is determined to be ethical.

In consideration of the categorical imperative, it is acceptable that this decision become a precedence in deciding like situations in the future.  This is because it is based on sound policy and the situation deals with a means of motivating faculty to improve themselves.  This decision implies that each faculty member will be held to the same standard, and all may expect consistency in dealing with like situations.  It does not mean that no consideration is given to those who do not meet the standard of exceptional performance.  It simply indicates that all will receive the same consideration in the future.  Finally, this precedence may become another factor in motivating all faculty to strive for outstanding performance in the future.

In applying the priority principal, an evaluation of the decision did not indicate that this action was ethical with regard to every lens.  Under the lenses of care, utility, rights, and categorical imperative, the decision seems to have been supported as ethical.  However, under the lens of justice, this decision has not been supported.  Therefore, these lenses must be prioritized in order to show which is the most important in terms of its applicability to this case.  First, most of the lenses yielded the results that this is probably an ethical decision. Therefore, it can be said that the lenses convey more support that this decision is ethical than that it is not.  Second, each lens may be weighted differently in regard to importance in this specific case.  For example, it may be more important to the future of the institution and the principle of a consistent merit raise system specifically, that more weight is placed on specific lenses.  Therefore, it follows that the lenses of care, utility, rights, and categorical imperative, collectively, carry more weight than the single lens of justice in this case.

In conclusion, it is important to note that this decision is valid in this case only.  It may not be suitable for situations that may arise in the future.  For example, future scenarios may officially include the faculty or may include specific guidelines as to what must be shown in order to qualify for merit raises.  Additionally, one must attempt to complete the process of evaluation of any decision with an open mind understanding that the ethical reasoning model is a means to guide the decision-maker through a series of steps.  These steps should cause the individual responsible for choosing a course of action to evaluate the decision based on whether or not it is ethically acceptable rather than whether or not it is the course of action he or she feels is appropriate.  If one is not careful in applying this model to cases in which there is no clear-cut answer, it is possible for him or her to simply use this model to validate a pre-selected position.  Finally, this model simply suggests whether or not this action is considered ethical.  It does not indicate that it is the one best solution.  Therefore, it is important to remember that there may likely be other courses of actions that are as ethical and possible better alternatives to the specific situation.

< Back