In many societies, it is evident that whenever a company or a group records increase in performance and eventual success, the credit usually goes to the top management such as the CEO, branch among other leaving out the real ground engines behind that success (Painter-Morland and Bos, 2011:18). These issues of partiality and selective identification when it comes to remuneration, job promotion, awarding among others activities aimed at reinforcing personnel is an ethical debate that has sparkled many arguments with different perspective either supporting or detesting the remuneration process reached at through merit credibility (Deckop, 2006:89). It is, therefore, prudent enough to critically analyse this, debate about it and take a stance based on the presented propositions (Cannon, 2008:56). This argument aims at broadening the outlook into ethical matters of fairness and equality when it comes to reinforcements at the work place as it seeks to support the essay question asked in the title.
The essay has two sides by under which a person can stand on by either admitting that it is just and fair or it is not for remuneration to be given based on performance and rank of the employee. Among the key tasks of the employers or people at the managerial positions at work places are to ensure that there exist mechanisms that enable justice and fairness when it comes to rewarding their employees so that ethical standards of equality and sprite is met (Brink, 2011:35). They do this through evaluating the merits of their employees and compensate them according to their efforts that they have made in seeing the success of the organisation. However, this action has met a lot of criticisms and arguments have been raised concerning what the critics describe as ‘equality and fairness under trial’ claiming that it’s unreasonable to leave out or award lowly those who make less contributions to the success of the organisation (Lewis,