In the case study detailed in the textbook, the rights of both parties were affected in a
way. However, as per the current laws of the country and especially Washington where the
headquarters of the organization is situated, it is the right of the people practicing same-sex
marriages and the children who were being funded by the donors whose right were affected.
Religious organizations in the United States struggle with their human resource policy as stated
in the reading (Hartman, Desjardins & MacDonald, 2014). Most of these organizations are run
on Christian values, and thus they employ employees who reflect these values. The Christian
organization, in this case, did not carefully evaluate its hiring policies before making a change.
Had they carefully evaluated their hiring policies before the transition, then the chances are that
the damages would have been minimized. They were finally left with an egg in the face
following the changes that they made to their hiring policies firstly to accommodate gays and
secondly to align themselves according to the views of the traditional donors.
The organization would have taken a course of action before making changes to its hiring
process. It would have come up with a transparent policy which is typically more comfortable to
work with. An open system not only attracts better employers but also brings good donors on
board. The procedure and policies formulated should have been clear in helping the employees in
setting realistic expectations (Hartman et al., 2014). It would have also reduced the chances of
making mistakes and misunderstanding that arose. As matters stand, the organization needs to
develop a clear strategy that will help it in solving the issue at hand. It is critical to note that the
organization has made to changes in its hiring policy in the recent past that has resulted in issues
at hand (Hartman et al., 2014). They initially made changes to accommodate the gay people in
line with the current laws only to make an about-turn when they realized that most of their
traditional donors were pulling out as a result.
BUSINESS HEAD 3
The organization did not apply standards of ethical behavior correctly. It is essential to
note that the organization was a Christian organization and thus it was bound to the Christian
values. It is not a public institution but a private institution, therefore, it should have a stack with
the Christian values through which it has operated on through the years. It is, in fact, an act of
hypocrisy that they reversed their human resource policies when they realized that some donors
were withdrawing their support and that the organization was facing a crisis. In both
circumstances, the organization did not apply ethical behavior correctly.
As matters stand, the organization is supposed to take things slowly and carefully think
about the options that they have. One of the best approaches that they could adopt is calling a
meeting of all the stakeholders (Hartman et al., 2014). The donors are as crucial as the top
management in the organization. They should also consider having a lawyer in the meeting to
give them a way forward and also give them a legal implication of the actions that they are likely
to take. The organization should stand its ground and keep practicing what they have always
practiced for many years. It is to be noted that the organization was trying to set the high
standards to the community. Being a Christian organization, its values and operation reflected
Christian values. The Christian doctrine actively preaches against gays which the organization
was trying to promote by employing gays. They should stick to what they teach and hold.
BUSINESS HEAD 4
Hartman, L., Desjardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2014). Business Ethics Decision Making for
Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility (4th ed., pp. 1-57). McGraw Hill Education.