WE ASK THE ETHICIST: HOW BAD WAS WILLIE RANDOLPH'S FIRING?

Getty Images

I'll be coaching with the Yankees within the year.

After Met's manager Willie Randolph was fired at 12:15 am last night after a win in Los Angeles, the way he was let go had clearly struck a nerve. Reporters called it "classless" and an "abomination." One called it the most "undignified, atrocious firing" he's seen in 30 years of New York baseball. But how bad is this really in the bigger picture? Where does this kind of firing fit in among the greater ethical codes of our society? To find out we decided to ask the New York Times' Ethicist, Randy Cohen, to explain where Willie's firing fits on the ethical rubric, tell us at what point a firing crosses the line, and give some potential advice for owners.


Mag.Com: Overall, do you consider this firing unethical?
The Ethicist: The manner in which the front office did it has nothing really to do with the ethics of it. If you're fired from a job, what you're really mad about is the fact that you got the axe. That you won't be working there anymore is ultimately more important than how you were let go. Discourtesy does not necessarily equal unethical behavior.

What about Mets fans? A poll on The Daily News website had 82% of readers against the timing of the firing. Does the front office have any sort of ethical obligation to its fans?
It's a fact, managements often have to ignore the prevailing opinion of the fans. The success of the team should be paramount. If they believe the fans opinions will work against the success of a team, they have to put them aside.

What about red flags—like poor management or disorganization—would they would qualify the firing as unethical?
If they would have been intentionally holding information from him, or waiting for some stipulation to pass that got them off the contractual hook, that would have been unethical. The same if it was the result of some personal thing unrelated to his performance or the success of the team or if the management knew well in advance that they were going to fire him, and they purposely hid it. You can't lie to the guy. You have obligations to the organization to be honest, if not forthright. That's both good management and good ethics. But this was no mystery to Willie. Maybe the exact timing was, but that he was in contention for replacement couldn't have been.

There are rumors (read this and this) that the management may have been responsible for leaking information to undermine Randolph?
If senior management is leaking embarrassing or intentional information about the performance of a manager to his subordinates or to an exclusive group of people in attempts to undermine him, that certainly seems unethical. But if we don't know for sure if those rumors are true, then it's difficult to speculate.

So unless those rumors are proved, this is completely ethical?
Yes. There is, however one overarching ethical obligation I'd like to point out. If you are a very senior person in an organization and if you realize that you lack the skills to do your job well, then you have a duty to resign. Look at an airline pilot or a heart surgeon, if they consistently fail at their task they are required to remove themselves from the job. The higher up you are the more your are duty-bound to step down. If an owner decides to institute a three beer minimum before games just because he likes watching his players wobble around, that's clearly unethical. The success of the team is always paramount and the higher you get in the organization the higher your obligation, even if you are the owner.

Print Article . Email Article. Subscribe to The Magazine