Ethical Dilemmas: Whose Ethics?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Whose Ethics??

I just finished doing an online ethics course for work. Lordy was it cheesy!

One of the things that I thought was really funny was that they are trying to promote the sorts of ethics that they as a coporation want us to have. One of the scenarios outlined in their little video was about a woman who finds out that her good friend and co-worker is going to be laid off but isd told to not say anything. To make it worse she gets a phone call from her friend later that night and he starts telling her about how he and his wife are going to be buying a new home that will be expensive but they should be able to cover it with their two incomes. The course obviously says that the this woman should not tell her friend about his being laid off because she made a promise not to say anything to her manager. They say that she should talk to the manager and tell the manager what the situation is and that they need to let him know right away.
Then they make the situation even worse. They say well what if she happens to know that the manager had a relationship with her friend at one time and he left her for his current wife. Perhaps she now has reason to believe that this manager may be laying her friend off out of revenge, what should she do? Obviously she still doesn't tell her friend. I believe that one of the people in the video actually says "Under no circumstances should she tell him." She should go to managment above the manager that she is dealing with and tell them and if they don't do anything about it then she should seriously consider whether or not she wants to work with such people, but she shouldn't tell her friend under any circumstances.
What a crock of hoey.

This actress did make it somewhat pleasant though...
http://toposwopetalent.com/headshots/Jeanette_Maus_1.jpg

 

[arildno]

Disgusting example of the common brainwashing procedure.
Managers and employers are not, as such, the sources of moral authority, however much some of them like to think of themselves in that way.

 

[PerennialII]

... have taken part in similar "lessons", what only got exercised was the gag reflex. A sorry way to try to imply an involvement of "ethics" .

 

[russ_watters]

One of the things that I thought was really funny was that they are trying to promote the sorts of ethics that they as a coporation want us to have. [emphasis added]

Not quite: they are promoting the sorts of ethics corporations will require you to have. Like it or not, when you get to the working world, you will almost certainly have to work/live under such a system.

Disgusting example of the common brainwashing procedure.
Managers and employers are not, as such, the sources of moral authority, however much some of them like to think of themselves in that way.

Like it or not, the people in charge make the rules.

 

[arildno]

Might makes right, huh?
I'm fully aware of how the "real world" works, I'm not too sure whether you do.

 

[russ_watters]

Might makes right, huh?

No, might makes reality. I never said anything about it being "right".*

I'm fully aware of how the "real world" works, I'm not too sure whether you do.

With the combative, blanket ati-authority attitude you are displaying, I'm not sure you do.

*That said, the typical ethics rules do have logical reasons behind them, though they are weighted toward what is "right" for the company vs "right" for the employees (at least on an individual vs group basis - sometimes what is "right" for an individual isn't "right" for the group) - and if the course Ape took wasn't teaching the why behind the rules, it wasn't getting the job done. In addition, more often than not, ethical dilemas happen in business because of people breaking (or worse, telling an underling to break) the rules. But they do occasionally also happen because of a person's position in a company conflicting with a relationship. Ie, trying to be in a position of authority vs being a friend. And people have to make decisions all the time between what is "right" for the company (and their own career) vs what is "right" for their friendship.

As for the specific scenario in the OP, no it isn't pleasant (if they were, there'd be no dilema and so nothing to teach), but I'm sure you guys can think of reasons why it makes sense for such rules to be in place...

 

[arildno]

No, might makes reality. I never said .

Typical conservative statement:
"Any action designed to redistribute power in society is morally wrong.
Any desire, on basis of moral principles, to change the manner in which people act is "fanciful", because the "real world" doesn't work like that".

 

[BobG]

One of the things that I thought was really funny was that they are trying to promote the sorts of ethics that they as a coporation want us to have.

Do they at least have a course that teaches managers that there are more than just the "official" lines of communication and that they'd better learn to tap into all lines of communication if they want to be successful?

This scenario ignores the reality of today's working world. A person isn't likely to work for the same company for their entire life anymore and neither are their coworkers. You should always be preparing yourself for your next job and one of the ways of preparing yourself is networking. That friend that is being laid off may just get you a job somewhere down the line. About the only thing your employer will do to help you find a future job is to give a good reference if someone calls them (provided, of course, you don't blatantly defy corporate expectations, like leaking official info that you're not supposed to).

In other words, the scenario has a purpose, even if it is in overkill mode, but the employer would have to be extremely naive to believe this training would allow them to handle a real world situation like this.

 

[russ_watters]

Typical conservative statement:
"Any action designed to redistribute power in society is morally wrong.
Any desire, on basis of moral principles, to change the manner in which people act is "fanciful", because the "real world" doesn't work like that".

Do not put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.

 

[Anttech]

Not quite: they are promoting the sorts of ethics corporations will require you to have. Like it or not, when you get to the working world, you will almost certainly have to work/live under such a system.

I work in "that" system and looking at my contract it doesn't say anywhere I am required to do what was outlined in the OP...

And before you disect my post due to choice of words, it also doesn't say I am required to have the same mentioned ethics..

 

[arildno]

I never said you said this.

 

[russ_watters]

I never said you said this.

You quoted me and then responded with that! Clearly you meant to imply that either I meant that and you were paraphasing or that what I said implied it. Either way, that's putting words in my mouth I didn't say.

If you have an actual argument to make about the case or the concept, make it. What you are doing now is insulting and disingenuous.

 

[arildno]

You started the insulting game by coming with flippant, utterly irrelevant remarks about "how the world works".
I suggest you stop that first.

 

[russ_watters]

I work in "that" system and looking at my contract it doesn't say anywhere I am required to do what was outlined in the OP...

The entire point of such classes is that things like that are not specifically outlined in your contract. They can't be because contracts can't cover everything. But that scenario is a fairly typical (if a little over-the-top as Bob mentioned) scenario where a person in a position in authority has information that they are not allowed to pass on to their underlings. People are in that scenario in the corporate world every day.

Heck, I work in a company with only 5 people and because I'm the second from the top, I know about such things before the guys under me do and I was in a similar situation. In my particular case, had I known the guy being fired was about to make such a commitment, I would have made my boss aware of it, so we could stop him from doing it. If my boss had disagreed, I probably would have disobeyed, but my boss is not a heartless guy and he's aware of the realities that Bob mentioned, so it probably wouldn't have been a problem. But that doesn't mean that it still wouldn't be a difficult situation to deal with.

And before you disect my post due to choice of words, it also doesn't say I am required to have the same mentioned ethics.

Your post is quite straightforward.

 

[russ_watters]

You started the insulting game by coming with flippant, utterly irrelevant remarks about "how the world works".
I suggest you stop that first.

If you thought my first post was flip or irrelevant, you should have made an argument stating why. Frankly, I though your first post was flip and missing the point and I pointed out why and made an argument showing why. And the correct way to respond is by making an argument explaining youself. But instead, you either misunderstood my point or intentionally misconstrued it (twice! already, in two separate posts). If you made a mistake, fine - admit it and move on. If you intentionally misconstrued it, that is not acceptable and you need to correct it.

This may be GD, but you still can't lie about and insult people here.

 

[Anttech]

The entire point of such classes is that things like that are not specifically outlined in your contract. They can't be because contracts can't cover everything. But that scenario is a fairly typical (if a little over-the-top as Bob mentioned) scenario where a person in a position in authority has information that they are not allowed to pass on to their underlings. People are in that scenario in the corporate world every day.
.

By require what do you mean then?

I work in a company of about 5000 Globally, spilt into several divisions, with numerous departments.. But this scenario could not be enforced, in Europe at least, I can't see anyway they could enforce it, and hence require you to adhere to it.

 

[arildno]

You didn't give any "argument".

The issue in question is that in this course of "ethics", it is assumed without question that a manager has the moral authority of forbidding an employee from saying something to someone else (so that it would be immoral of the employee to go against that sanction).

Short story: A manager does not, in general, have that type of moral authority.

 

[BobG]

This type of scenario is also why it is extremely rare that employees wouldn't be aware that layoffs are coming, even if they don't know how many or who is being laid off. The person should have had an out where they could pointedly address the folly of making a large purchase right before a layoff without revealing any confidential info. Loyalty and communication are a two way street, even between the employer and those that are about to depart for one reason or another.

Of course, the debate over the specific scenario is probably beside the point. They chose a bad scenario that winds up detracting from the point they're trying to make (they trusted you with confidential info and you shouldn't betray that trust). Unless it's a joint management/employee training session discussion, in which case, the discussion just might open a few eyes on both sides.

 

[arildno]

They chose a bad scenario that winds up detracting from the point they're trying to make (they trusted you with confidential info and you shouldn't betray that trust). .

So this is the point, eh?
If your employers trust you with confidential info that they have been acting as criminals (in some manner), then you are morally obliged not to disclose that info?

Nope, you're not morally obliged to in any such situation to withhold that info from others.

 

[russ_watters]

By require what do you mean then?

Well, you used the word "require", but quite simply - not everything you will have to do will be outlined in your contract. That doesn't mean you won't find yourself in a similar scenario: it happens.

I'm sure it doesn't tell you in your contract what you should do if your boss asks you to switch to a different seat at a meeting, either, but that's still something you may have to deal with.

I work in a company of about 5000 Globally, spilt into several divisions, with numerous departments.. But this scenario could not be enforced, in Europe at least, I can't see anyway they could enforce it, and hence require you to adhere to it.

Oh, by "require" do you mean physically cause you to take a certain action? Well certainly they can't make you do anything (you can show up to work naked if you want), but that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions if you don't follow the instructions. That is how they exert control/force over your actions. Ie, in the scenario in the OP, if you disobey, your boss could fire or discipline you. You can still, of course, choose to risk it if you want to.

 

[BobG]

So this is the point, eh?
If your employers trust you with confidential info that they have been acting as criminals (in some manner), then you are morally obliged not to disclose that info?
Nope, you're not morally obliged to in any such situation to withhold that info from others.

A person should always know who they're the most morally obligated to. In that case, the laws of their society would have to take priority over any moral obligations to one employer - even their own employer.

You could also apply that to your loyalty to your immediate supervisor and the organization, itself. That's probably a little more realistic scenario where some middle level manager thinks he has his own little empire to build. There's still ways of handling that that are better than others,at least if you have enough confidence in your own position to resist being bullied.

 

[arildno]

A person should always know who they're the most morally obligated to. In that case, the laws of their society would have to take priority over any moral obligations to one employer - even their own employer.

Correct, and that's why the basic point is NOT about whether to pass along confidential info is wrong or not; rather, it is about whether the employer in the particular case given is to be regarded as having the moral authority to forbid the employee from talking. In the course, it is a priori assumed that, yes, he has that type of moral authority, and that's what is disgusting about the scenario.

 

[Moonbear]

I just finished doing an online ethics course for work. Lordy was it cheesy!
One of the things that I thought was really funny was that they are trying to promote the sorts of ethics that they as a coporation want us to have. One of the scenarios outlined in their little video was about a woman who finds out that her good friend and co-worker is going to be laid off but isd told to not say anything. To make it worse she gets a phone call from her friend later that night and he starts telling her about how he and his wife are going to be buying a new home that will be expensive but they should be able to cover it with their two incomes. The course obviously says that the this woman should not tell her friend about his being laid off because she made a promise not to say anything to her manager. They say that she should talk to the manager and tell the manager what the situation is and that they need to let him know right away.

Interesting that they focus on the employee and her friend. The breech in ethics here is that someone leaked word of an employee getting fired before that employee was notified. I can't think of a scenario where it would ever be appropriate to have someone find themselves in this situation in the first place. There is NEVER a reason to discuss your actions regarding an employee with another employee before you've even notified the first employee of the action being taken. If the friend of the employee getting fired is management, and usually in a position to be informed of pending decisions regarding employees, then as soon as their friend was being discussed, they should have informed the other managers that they have a conflict of interest and should not have been present for the decision in this case.

If someone has already leaked the word to you about your best friend, that's not corporate ethics they're teaching you about, that's corporate covering of butts or they can call it corporate policy, but ethics is the wrong word there. By the time you're facing that dilemma, there have already been breeches of ethics. If anything, about all I think you should be obligated to do, ethically, is to tell the person who told you, supposedly in confidence, about this that they were wrong to share this with you and that you cannot promise confidentiality.

This also assumes that you've been given this news from someone with the authority to know of this decision. If it's just office rumor, then bringing it to your manager first would be appropriate, to confirm the rumor or let them know the rumor is going around to address it, either by notifying your friend sooner of the decision so they aren't hearing of it through the rumor mill, or making it clear that this action is not being taken to shut down the rumor mill. Of course, there's also the option that as soon as you hear your friend is starting to make plans about buying a new house, you could march into the boss' office and inform them right then and there that you're not going to let your friend make a decision they can't afford to make, so either the boss notify your friend immediately and get it over with, or you will. Afterall, they didn't say what the conversation needed to be when you went to the manager's manager, did they? In terms of personal relationships, it's better if the news comes from the boss rather than you anyway, and then you can mysteriously "hear" about it almost immediately to be there to support your friend emotionally.

Of course, when your personal ethics conflict with corporate policy, you're free to make the choice to follow your personal ethics, but keep in mind that it might include terminating your employment with that corporation, either by your choice or theirs if they learn that you broke their policy. So, if you're asking the question, "Whose ethics?" then they are at least correct that you always can choose the door. They aren't worried about your friendships, they are worried about making money and avoiding lawsuits.

If you were really going to stick to your ethics, you'd quit, but most people are more practical about their needs and will compromise on that aspect of their ethics and wait until they get caught breaking corporate policy.

 

[Anttech]

Oh, by "require" do you mean physically cause you to take a certain action? Well certainly they can't make you do anything (you can show up to work naked if you want), but that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions if you don't follow the instructions. That is how they exert control/force over your actions. Ie, in the scenario in the OP, if you disobey, your boss could fire or discipline you. You can still, of course, choose to risk it if you want to.

Actually in Europe I highly doubt they could fire you for that, and if they did, you would nail them in court. This is why I am asking you to define "require." A company can not require you to keep that sort of info to your self. They could require you to keep patented secrets to your self but not gossip or info regarding a colleague that could be fired especially in a situation like the OP...

 

[arildno]

BREECHES of ethics, Moonbear??
I've never worn one of those, I fear..

Good post, though..

 

[Anttech]

(you can show up to work naked if you want), but that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions if you don't follow the instructions..

hehe.. well they might have grounds for firing you there.. acutally locking you up in a padded cell

 

[BobG]

BREECHES of ethics, Moonbear??
I've never worn one of those, I fear..
Good post, though..

Some people wear their heart on their sleeve and others wear their ethics... :rofl:

 

[Moonbear]

I work in a company of about 5000 Globally, spilt into several divisions, with numerous departments.. But this scenario could not be enforced, in Europe at least, I can't see anyway they could enforce it, and hence require you to adhere to it.

Realistically, they couldn't enforce it unless you were dumb enough to tell your friend the news right outside the manager's door. But, if you visit their home, and just happen to mention that you have been given some reliable, but confidential information you can't share, but your friend might want to seriously consider getting her resume together and start looking for a new place to work , the manager won't know. If you're really friends, your friend won't tell anyone who told her to get the resume out, either. You've neither betrayed your friendship nor actually outright told her what the manager forbid you from sharing, and there's nothing they can do because you technically haven't violated any company policy. Two can always play those corporate games.

 

[arildno]

Just to make it clear:
I consider it rather imprudent to disclose the given info in this case, but that's something quite different from judging the act to be immoral.

 

[Moonbear]

BREECHES of ethics, Moonbear??
I've never worn one of those, I fear..

Darn ethical breeches...they always make your butt look big.

:tongue: Meh, no point fixing my spelling mistake now. :rofl:

 

[Anttech]

Realistically, they couldn't enforce it unless you were dumb enough to tell your friend the news right outside the manager's door. But, if you visit their home, and just happen to mention that you have been given some reliable, but confidential information you can't share, but your friend might want to seriously consider getting her resume together and start looking for a new place to work , the manager won't know. If you're really friends, your friend won't tell anyone who told her to get the resume out, either. You've neither betrayed your friendship nor actually outright told her what the manager forbid you from sharing, and there's nothing they can do because you technically haven't violated any company policy. Two can always play those corporate games.

Yes you are right, and your approach would be the same as mine!

 

[Moonbear]

Actually in Europe I highly doubt they could fire you for that, and if they did, you would nail them in court. This is why I am asking you to define "require." A company can not require you to keep that sort of info to your self. They could require you to keep patented secrets to your self but not gossip or info regarding a colleague that could be fired especially in a situation like the OP...

I'm not sure how that one would hold up in court. If there was no signed confidentiality agreement, it probably wouldn't hold up in US court either. This doesn't stop corporations from including these types of things as policy and hoping you'll just go along with it because they said to do so. It also doesn't mean they expect it to hold up if challenged in court or be enforceable if you violate the policy; they rely on people to just go with the flow and be more worried about keeping their paychecks coming in than challenging questionable policies.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually in Europe I highly doubt they could fire you for that, and if they did, you would nail them in court. This is why I am asking you to define "require." A company can not require you to keep that sort of info to your self. They could require you to keep patented secrets to your self but not gossip or info regarding a colleague that could be fired especially in a situation like the OP...

Part of the problem here is that the scenario has a lot of unanswered questions in it. Ie, if you are in management and you hare helping to make the decision on whom to fire, then obviously you know something and obviously the company would "require" that you keep the information secret until the final decision is made and the layoffs announced. That's an important part of your job.

But Moonbear is also right that if you are in that situation, the ethical dilema is of your own making: you should make management aware of that conflict of interest and avoid the situation in the first place.

And I also agree with her that you can probably tip-toe through that scenario and come out ok, but that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions if the situation goes bad. Ie, if the secrecy was for industrial espionage or theft reasons and your "friend" is able to steal something because you told him/her before the company could fire them (you guys have see Office Space, right?), then you could lose both your friend and your job.

 

[Moonbear]

Part of the problem here is that the scenario has a lot of unanswered questions in it.

Yes, that is always part of the problem in these training video type things. If the company just shows the video with no discussion, they might as well have not wasted everyone's time making them watch it. All it will do is send everyone away disgruntled and thinking management is a bunch of ogres. They are usually meant to have open-ended questions that can then be discussed, much as have come out in this discussion, such as do you know the reason for the person being fired, is there sensitive information involved, why were you told of the decision, what can management do to help resolve the dilemma you're now facing, how reliable is the information, etc.

 

[BobG]

The most realistic part of the scenario is "She should go to managment above the manager that she is dealing with and tell them and if they don't do anything about it then she should seriously consider whether or not she wants to work with such people..."

Even the military is better at dealing with communications than the original scenario. I used to have a job where we would go on classified deployments that we could tell no one about - not even our families. When that part of the briefing came up, I was glad the commander was the first to laugh and ask, "Won't our families get suspicious when we don't come home from work?" Smart organizations set up processes that will actually work for both parties or they won't hang on to their employees for very long (and, yes, we came up with a better solution than telling our families, "I'm going to stop and pick up a carton of milk so I'll be a couple months late getting home.")