In class my group was posed this scenario: A member of a
student organization wants to run for president (and would be a really good
candidate) but they have a poor GPA. They only have a poor GPA because they
tried to remain an involved member while balancing a difficult, time-consuming
major, as well as family problems. To be president, a previous executive board
position is required, and because of this member’s poor GPA, they do not
fulfill that requirement. The person running against them had an E-board
position, but it was a relatively easy position and they did a poor job. These
two candidates are the only members running for president.
After consideration, my group decided that we would use
rule-based thinking and not allow the member to run for president. We feel this
is fair because they do not meet the two requirements of having the minimum GPA
and having previously held an E-board position. Additionally, we felt that the
person running against them may actually be a very good president because perhaps
the pervious executive board position they held did not allow them to showcase
or develop their strengths as a leader. This decision also involves justice vs.
mercy choices because you could decide to be fair and hold all members
accountable for their academic performance like we chose to, or you could
choose to be more empathetic and let the member run for president.
I totally agree with the decisions of your group! I would not trust this member to uphold their duties within the organization if they are unable to produce decent grades. I also find it brave to tell the member no. It can be hard and disappointing even if this member is a close friend. In the end tho, you have to just sick to your gut and do what is best for the team. At least that is what I would hope the exec boards that I am involved with would do.
ReplyDeleteThis was the scenario that Amit and I came up with and I agree with your decision. The inability to fulfill academic and chapter requirements could reflect on the member's ability to juggle a school course load with the needs of the chapter, which is a big responsibility. It's interesting to see rule-based vs. mercy-based thinking and how those decisions play out in professional decision making.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you. This situation would kind of suck, especially because it sounds like the first candidate is probably well-known and well-liked. I always tend to favor the mercy side of things rather than justice. But in situations like these, you have to stick to the rule-based thinking and be fair for everyone across the board. If you don't, then it would be complete chaos and no one would take you seriously as an organization. This person may have done a great job as president, but not having a high enough GPA should kick them out of the running.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very difficult decision to make. I do agree with you though. Students are here to study, and student organizations should not come first. They need to get their priorities straight before taking on even more responsibility. Also, if they can't manage their own grades, it would be very difficult for them to be able to manage an entire student organization without having any major problems. Choosing to go with rule-based thinking in this scenario would probably be the best way to go and it would make the decision much easier for your group.
ReplyDelete