Are Corporate Ethics Training Programs Truly Effective?

[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.")

 

[Evo]

The most realistic part of the scenario is "She should go to managment above the manager that she is dealing with and tell them

Go to them with what, a hunch, an unfounded rumor? That could be seen as slander, defamation of character, etc... not to mention unprofessional and probably career suicide at that company. For layoffs, there is usually sufficient legal documention since the worker can file for worker's compensation.

She has to keep confidential work information confidential.

I am assuming that this woman that was told about the layoff in confidence was in a management position. As a manager in a large corporation, my contract says that I can be terminated at any time and for any reason, without notice or compensation. It said the same thing at my last company. A lot of states are "employment at will" states which means you have no job security. Either party can terminate employment at any time without cause.

The reason a company doesn't pre-announce who is being laid off is because they are afraid that if the employees knows, instead of working, they will start job hunting, they might quit before the company is ready for them to leave, they might steal proprietary company information.

I think it stinks that companies do this, but they are acting in their own interest. This is how life is out in the cold, cruel world, this is reality in corporate America.

It is really tough to be the manager that has to let people go. I've known managers that fell apart and started crying because they had to look at people they considered friends and tell them they were being let go. At my last job, they were downsizing due to a merger and my boss would tell us in every weekly meeting, don't assume that any of us will have jobs after the merger and act accordingly. The guy that worked across from me was let go, he had been out on disability with cancer of his eye (he lost it), pretty much unemployable at that point with medical issues and he got the boot. I still start crying when I think of it. He was allowed to stay for 30 days after his layoff in order to train his replacement.

 

[BobG]

At my last job, they were downsizing due to a merger and my boss would tell us in every weekly meeting, don't assume that any of us will have jobs after the merger and act accordingly. The guy that worked across from me was let go, he had been out on disability with cancer of his eye (he lost it), pretty much unemployable at that point with medical issues and he got the boot. I still start crying when I think of it. He was allowed to stay for 30 days after his layoff in order to train his replacement.

True, but notice they made sure people knew the overall situation so that they'd be unlikely to make some very ill timed financial decisions. They would also be a little better prepared emotionally for the chance that they may have to be looking for a new job. That's about as good as a manager can do in that situation.

 

[Astronuc]

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

I agree with both positions - and they are not mutually exclusive.

We live in a dialectical world - in the sense that there is frequent conflict to assert oneself while resisting the assertions of external entitities, be that other individuals or institutions, which are afterall composed of people.

I for one learned at a very early age to challenge authority, especially bad authority.

 

[russ_watters]

Some expansion on this:

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.

A lot of people are making assumptions about how things could go right with this scenario, but that defeats the purpose of ethics (or just plain decision making) training. The entire point is to think about all the ways this scenario might bite you in the ass - regardless of how likely such possibilities are. Because unlikely as it may be, your supposed "friend" in this scenario might use the opportunity to steal from the company and you have to consider that before making the decision to tell him/her.

Or she might come to work tomorrow with a gun.
Or she might tell everyone she knows and cause half the company to quit rather than risk being fired.
Or the boss might reconsider firing her - right before she shows up in his office and flips him off.

Yes I probably would act as Moonbear indicated and yes, it probably would work out ok, but it is prudent to at least consider all that might go wrong before making the decision.

I was in a scenario like this and it really could have bitten me in the ass (there was a nepotism situation and I called my boss out on it, publicly)...but I'll save the explanation for tonight when not at my desk at work...

 

[Evo]

True, but notice they made sure people knew the overall situation so that they'd be unlikely to make some very ill timed financial decisions.

Yeah, after the layoffs were announced on CNN and National news. (I work for very large companies).

What wasn't known was which departments would get cut back, which positions, etc... It's just lovely knowing the axe will fall but you don't know who's going to be under the axe. I can't remember who in this thread said to just assume your job is always at risk and be prepared. That was great advice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's the real problem with the training video:

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."

This is saying "You will protect management even when they are behaving unethically."

The whole video is suddenly seen to be Orwellian Double-Speak. "Ethics" doesn't mean ethics : "a discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation", but merely: "the principles of conduct, however amoral, for a particular group."

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, after the layoffs were announced on CNN and National news. (I work for very large companies).

Merck, anyone? They didn't even announce which plants would close when they first announced their cuts.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . . my contract says that I can be terminated at any time and for any reason, without notice or compensation. It said the same thing at my last company. A lot of states are "employment at will" states which means you have no job security. Either party can terminate employment at any time without cause.

Standard contract language, which I have signed several times.

I got caught in situations where the VP or President of my company came to me about another employee, and even one case where a President asked me to essentially 'spy' on another manager. I had to play that very carefully for obvious reasons. The manager subsequently left the company.

At another time, I new someone (another manager) was going to get fired, but I could not go to him, although I tried to help him improve his situation, which unfortunately proved futile. Nevertheless, I could not go tell this guy that he was in danger of being terminated.

Finally, I left my previous employment because a VP acted in a very unethical way behind my back until I accidentally found out.

Fortunately, I now work with a really cool group of people in small company in which there is good mutual support.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . 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 . . .

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, . . .

I don't watch soap operas and never have, and that is why I am probably confused with the second part of this scenario. It is clear that the friend is male (he). Then the manager, who is firing the friend, had a relationship with the friend, who left his wife for his current wife.

So did this guy leave his first wife, or the manager (who may be female, but could be gay), or both for the current wife?

Is this typical in large corporations?

I am glad I work in a small company with people I respect.

 

[BobG]

Merck, anyone? They didn't even announce which plants would close when they first announced their cuts.

Probably not quite as unethical as the concessions on pension benefits United Airlines made to the unions years ago. Always nice to push problems into an undefined future just hoping the company can meet the promises you made. Or is it just nice to blame problems on the idiot that had the job before you?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't watch soap operas and never have, and that is why I am probably confused with the second part of this scenario.

There should be no confusion: the manager is strongly suspected by one employee of firing another for personal revenge. Who is gay, male or female, is irrelevant. The trainee is being told the 'ethical" thing to do ignore this and not interfere.

 

[BobG]

There should be no confusion: the manager is strongly suspected by one employee of firing another for personal revenge. Who is gay, male or female, is irrelevant. The trainee is being told the 'ethical" thing to do ignore this and not interfere.

No, the trainee is being told to piss the manager off by ratting him out to the manager's boss. The trainee just better be right or the reason for not telling the trainee's friend prematurely might become clear. There could always be a last minute change in which employee is released.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, the trainee is being told to piss the manager off by ratting him out to the manager's boss. The trainee just better be right or the reason for not telling the trainee's friend prematurely might become clear. There could always be a last minute change in which employee is released.

What a person should actually do in this situation could be discussed to death, of course. I'm just pointing out the frightening double-speak in the use of the word "ethics". The trainee is being told not to bring any authentic ethics into the workplace. If a trainee can sit back and watch a friend get fired for personal revenge then the company can expect them to sit back and be quiet when they find out it is cheating it's clients by using cheaper materials than claimed and things of that nature.

 

[Anttech]

As a manager in a large corporation, my contract says that I can be terminated at any time and for any reason, without notice or compensation.

Mine doesnt.. I think the only country as rutheless in dismissal as that is the US. The UK isn't far behind. In benalux (maybe most of Europe) once you get you life contract an employer will have to have a very good reason to fire you, and even if they have a very good reason (the scenario in the OP is NOT a very good reason) they will pay for it dearly...

Social welfair does have its good points! Although I suppose thinking this as a good point is subjective.

The company I work for has a 2 week redundancy rule for its US emps.. Not for the Europeans however, we get paid slightly less (in general), but I personally don't do bad, on top of this I get 3* more holidays a year (ie 30 days), I have a life contract so if they want rid of me they will pay through there teeth via my lawer...

 

[Anttech]

Some expansion on this: A lot of people are making assumptions about how things could go right with this scenario, but that defeats the purpose of ethics (or just plain decision making) training. The entire point is to think about all the ways this scenario might bite you in the ass - regardless of how likely such possibilities are. Because unlikely as it may be, your supposed "friend" in this scenario might use the opportunity to steal from the company and you have to consider that before making the decision to tell him/her.
Or she might come to work tomorrow with a gun.
Or she might tell everyone she knows and cause half the company to quit rather than risk being fired.
Or the boss might reconsider firing her - right before she shows up in his office and flips him off.
Yes I probably would act as Moonbear indicated and yes, it probably would work out ok, but it is prudent to at least consider all that might go wrong before making the decision.
I was in a scenario like this and it really could have bitten me in the ass (there was a nepotism situation and I called my boss out on it, publicly)...but I'll save the explanation for tonight when not at my desk at work...

I wait with baited breath... I have also been in this type of situation. Management had to desided to become more "dynamic" ie a whole office was being moved to another country! I was informed early on due to my role in IT requires me to know these things (I had to design the new office's Telecoms and Data solutions, and help implement them). People arent stupid and it was clear by the atmosphere what was going to happen, I never told anyone exactly who asked me anything, only that they should get themselfs a employment lawer in case anything happened...

 

[Astronuc]

Mine doesnt.. I think the only country as rutheless in dismissal as that is the US. The UK isn't far behind. In benalux (maybe most of Europe) once you get you life contract an employer will have to have a very good reason to fire you, and even if they have a very good reason (the scenario in the OP is NOT a very good reason) they will pay for it dearly...

I think some European companies have adopted an employment practice more like those in the US, and certainly some big Japanese corporations have done the same.

 

[Anttech]

I think some European companies have adopted an employment practice more like those in the US

Legally they cant, there are strong employment laws in most EU countries

 

[Astronuc]

Well, I have worked with colleagues in some of the largest European companies, and some of them were told, if they wanted to keep their jobs, they would have to move, otherwise they would have to retire, or take a lesser job elsewhere in the company. The colleagues essentially stated that the European companies were becoming more like US companies.

Also, the previous company where I worked had to close down a European office, and it was difficult to deal with the national laws, but people were terminated.

 

[Evo]

Legally they cant, there are strong employment laws in most EU countries

True, my friend in Italy was explaining this to me, incredible. Once you're hired it doesn't matter how much of a loser you are, the company is stuck with you. It frustrates him to no end, people are holding jobs and not working. When he tries to get something done, no one cares.

 

[Anttech]

Well, I have worked with colleagues in some of the largest European companies, and some of them were told, if they wanted to keep their jobs, they would have to move, otherwise they would have to retire, or take a lesser job elsewhere in the company. The colleagues essentially stated that the European companies were becoming more like US companies.

This is exactly the scenario I was in, and the reason I moved from Amsterdam to Belgium.

The company could NOT offer less pay unless the emp signed a new legally binding contract. If they didnt they were made redundant and got a BIG payout, ie at least 1 months at current rate * years working at company, this could be a lot more if the emp went to court which some did and were given even more money... A company can not force you to move to a different country. On top of this, it is not unheard of that the company ahs to continue to pay the emp a sallary each month for up to a year even tho they are not working for the company. And if that person went on "stress" leave you can't get rid of him until his doctor said he was fit to work...

 

[Evo]

Also, the previous comany where I worked had to close down a European office, and it was difficult to deal with the national laws, but people were terminated.

Closing is probably one of the few ways to terminate people there.

 

[Anttech]

True, my friend in Italy was explaining this to me, incredible. Once you're hired it doesn't matter how much of a loser you are, the company is stuck with you. It frustrates him to no end, people are holding jobs and not working. When he tries to get something done, no one cares.

And on the flip side, the comapany must have had bad management to allow someone to get his life contract that was such a bad worker. You don't have to give a life contract till the 3rd contract you offer someone. Usually it works that you get a year contract then another year contract then a life contract. I think this may have been changed recently however

 

[arildno]

I think it stinks that companies do this, but they are acting in their own interest. This is how life is out in the cold, cruel world, this is reality in corporate America.

Well, a nation gets the business life it deserves.

 

[Evo]

And on the flip side, the comapany must have had bad management to allow someone to get his life contract that was such a bad worker. You don't have to give a life contract till the 3rd contract you offer someone. Usually it works that you get a year contract then another year contract then a life contract. I think this may have been changed recently however

I'm sure they were productive until their job was guaranteed. Obviously the majority of workers don't fall into this category, but from listening to him, it sounds like it's just about everyone he encounters. Also, it is Sicily, attitude there is a bit different.

 

[Anttech]

Ahh explains a lot :-)

Costra nostra.. you do your business I do mine ;-)