Last month, a Best Buy Store Manager was terminated for violating the “Inappropriate Conduct” policy and subsequently requested a Peer Review. After reviewing all the statements from the people involved and looking at Best Buy policy, the panel upheld the decision to terminate.
The appeal summary states that the manager held a Nintendo Wii for personal purchase when it was on the ad after telling another employee that they would have to wait in line with the customers if they wanted to purchase a Wii. In addition, the summary states that the manager purchased the Wii at an unauthorized price. A bestbuy.com error had the product listed for less than what it was supposed to be sold and previous communication had been sent to managers instructing them to sell at the higher price but to take care of customers on a case by case basis. The manager acknowledged putting the product aside but then forgot to purchase it. The following day the manager noticed the product was still available, which is why the purchase was made. When questioned about the incident, the manager acknowledged using poor judgment but denied any wrongdoing.
The Decision Summary is as follows
1. The manager knowingly and willingly held back ad product for purchase and took unauthorized discounts on the product.
2. The manager admitted the above to the panel but felt it was just an error in judgment.
3. The manager did violate the company’s Inappropriate Conduct Policy and Conduct Guidelines for Managers.
4. The panel felt that the manager should have partnered with their immediate manager before purchasing the product to insure no policies were being violated.
5. The panel felt that the manager did not act in accordance with our company’s core values.
What ethical challenges do you see here?
Who do you partner with when faced with ethical questions like this?
Did you know that Peer Review is now available to GMs?
@Lisa
I agree with you that we need to send a clear message out there, and if you violate that rule then you are terminated no matter what position. The issue I have is, the rules ARE set. The company has set the rules, we are just not enforcing them on a dept., store, district level. Whatever the case may be.
Some of the rules are somewhat flexible but we still need to be smart in how we make our decisions. Being former military leadership, I used a basic principle. I helped other people first, then my subordinates, then if anything left over after everyone else is taken care of, me……. if possible.
Because we are leadership, we can’t put ourselves above others. We pay a higher price for our decisions, and we benefit through other rewards for that (such as bonuses and a higher pay rate). If we tell our employees to do one thing and we don’t follow that some principle, what does that say about our leadership style? What does that say us as an individuals?
My question is this, why are not all cases handled in the same way company wide. We had this same situation happen a store in our district and nothing but a slap on the hand. We have managers violating return policies etc. but we pick an choose who we term and who stays. The only way we are going to send a clean message is if as a company we say enough is enough. If you violate a policy you will be terminated! If that means you lose entire leadership teams then so be it.
This is cut and dried (as they say in the wheat business). My firm belief is that best buy does NOT do enough talking about the ethics and how they affect the stores on a day to day basis. Everyone signs a statement saying they understand the rules, but it’s seldom brought up going forward. A serious continuing education piece is missing, even though this seems like a common sense example that nearly every employee in the company would naturally understand. As far as partnering on a situation like this, it is your obligation, at whatever level you hold in the company (unless you are Dick Schulze) to partner with your direct manager when there is ever a doubt on ethics. —- and yes I knew peer review was now available to GM’s..
Again, this person was justifiably terminated. One of the severe reactions that could have come out of this is what would have happened had less than the number of systems than the ad said minimum quantity for each store was?
Second problem is what does that do to our viewpoint?
A clear case of inappropriate behavior. Again, this is a case of personal gain. Employees are always obligated (by our values and our policies) to act for the benefit of our customers and our company, not ourselves. When a manager does something like this it undermines their credibility in the store. As managers we act as stewards of the company and our store. I personally seek partners from fellow GMs when I have questions or one of my district players that I have thick line relationships with. We were informed by our HR manager this year that GMs were added to the Peer Review process…
Unethical, not to mention inconsiderate to the team members this manager wouldn’t let purchase. Again, we as managers should set the example, not be the example. If you wouldn’t do it for any other customer or employee you should not do it yourself. We have values and ethic to uphold in our stores for a reason, we benefit, our customers and employees benefit from it and so do our shareholders. I fully agree with this decision, and would feel the same way if it was my best employee or best friend.
Everything about this scenerio is unethical. As managers it is our responsibility to show our employees the ethical way to do things. No doubt that this is not living the company values. My rule of thumb is if your not sure about a policy, precedure, etc, get a partner that knows the proper answer, not the one you would “want to hear”.
It’s great to hear that GM’s can now participate in this process though.
Several years ago I termed an Assistant Manager for this very issue. To me it was clear cut as she and a family member personally gained from her actions. BBY affords our employees a great discount program but other than that all employees should be treated as any other customer. We wait in line for new releases, door busters etc.
The CT Department of Human Rights agreed with us as they found the discrimination complaint she filed as a result of her termination to be without merit.