Honesty
Zach is faced with the dilemma with respect to whether or not to voice his concerns over the hiring policies of the company for whom his company works. Essentially, Zach must at this point understand the role he plays. He is an agent of Colley & Davis, and his superiors have expressed what they feel is Zach's role. The client, in their view, is free to operate as it sees fit. The dilemma for Zach is that he feels this is not in the client's best interests.
It may be the case that there is a breakdown in the agency relationship between the CEO of the client and the shareholders. The breakdown is caused by an apparent lack of oversight by the Board of Directors. However, Zach has no such agency relationship. It is not his job to improve the client's performance but rather it is his job to improve his own company's performance. In this case, the best interest of Colley & Davis is to fulfill the client's requirements, for two reasons. One is that if he hires a stooge, the candidate is more likely to spend a year with the client, ensuring that the full fee is paid; the other is that his superiors have instructed him to do so. Not hiring a stooge would increase the risk that the full fee not be paid.
Zach has been honest with his opinions to this point, and he took those opinions to his superiors. This was the right thing to do in this situation, because Zach's responsibilities with respect to his honesty are to his own company. Now that he has received instruction from his superior, he should follow on that advice. He owes no fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the client company. Moreover, his opinions with respect to their CEO or Board of Directors are just that -- opinions. There is no need for dilemma with respect to airing his opinions, especially since he has already done so with the stakeholder to whom he has a bona fide duty.
