This paper examines a workplace ethics case study in which a new manager learns from her superior's secretary that the company may be relocating to Mexico — a fact the superior allegedly knew when he promised union workers a 30% pay raise and health benefits to avoid a strike. The paper identifies four distinct ethical issues: whether the employee must reveal her confidential source, whether the superior had the right to make promises he could not keep, whether he had the right to threaten her job to extract the information, and whether she acted ethically by escalating the matter to upper management. Drawing on principles of professional ethics, vicarious liability, and codes of conduct, the paper argues that ethics represent moral ideals rather than legal mandates, and that motivation is often central to determining whether an action is ethical.
The paper demonstrates applied ethical reasoning by anchoring abstract principles (vicarious liability, codes of conduct, professional duty) to the specifics of a single case. It uses analogies from the insurance and social work fields to generalize its conclusions while keeping the analysis grounded in the scenario's facts.
The paper opens with a narrative summary of the case and a definition of ethics before enumerating four ethical issues. Each issue receives its own section, moving from the employee's obligations, to the supervisor's conduct toward the union, to his conduct toward the employee, and finally to her decision to escalate. A brief conclusion reflects on the subjectivity inherent in applied ethics. Total length is moderate, suited to an undergraduate case-analysis assignment.
This paper explores a workplace ethics case study, examining what ethical issues are involved and how they can best be resolved. The discussion addresses not only whether a superior has the right to demand to know where confidential information came from, but also whether a company has the right to mislead a union about future plans in order to secure labor cooperation.
The case concerns a company employee who received information that could seriously undermine the credibility of her organization at a future date. She has worked for this company for only two months, having spent a year at the parent company in a probationary period before being sent here in a management role. Her direct superior is an ambitious executive whose primary goal is to move up and out of the present company. The employee received information from her superior's secretary regarding promises the man made to the union in order to avoid a strike. He promised a 30% pay raise and health insurance, effective two years from now, if employees would work hard at their current pay and agree to a wage freeze until that time. The secretary told the employee that the superior had made those promises knowing full well that there were ongoing negotiations to relocate the entire company to Mexico. Furthermore, he plans to be working at the parent company within two years and assumes that whoever replaces him will be left to deal with the broken promises about a pay increase that cannot possibly be honored.
When the employee questioned her superior about his promises and about the company's possible move to Mexico, he demanded to know who had given her the information. As she walks into a meeting, he reminds her that he wants the name of whoever told her about the Mexico rumor. He has essentially threatened her position with the company if she does not come forward with the name — even though the person who told her had made confidentiality a condition of sharing the information (Umiker, 1998).
Ethics represent what people should do, not necessarily what they must do. Ethics express one's conscience or moral sensibility rather than mere compliance with legal mandates. Some people believe ethics to be "plain common sense — just doing the right thing by people you deal with." Ethical behavior means more than following rules or a code of conduct built on prohibitions; it is a set of guiding principles. Work-related ethos is involved in performance reviews, promotions, assignments, disciplinary actions, protection of personal privacy — including email and fax messages — and the sharing of information. Ethical considerations have received more attention in recent years, driven more by the threat of legal liability than by a strong concern for people. Some observers believe that ethical violations are on the rise; one-third of respondents to a survey by Geber reported that they had witnessed violations in the preceding year.
There are several ethical issues involved in this case. First, whether the employee must reveal the name of the person who told her the company is moving to Mexico. Second, whether the supervisor had the right to make promises about future pay raises knowing the company might no longer be operating locally by the time those promises came due. Third, whether the superior had the right to demand the name of the informant — and whether he also had the right to threaten the employee's job if she refused. Fourth, whether the employee had the right to go over her superior's head and ask upper management for help.
The first ethical issue concerns the employee herself. Does she have to give up the name of her informant? Several questions arise. Does she owe it to her employer to come forward with the name? Does she owe it to the informant to keep the name confidential? Does she owe it to the company to disclose it?
The first lesson she needs to learn as a corporate professional is never to promise confidentiality before knowing what information she is about to receive. Agreeing to keep something secret before knowing its contents put her in a difficult position when she later tried to verify the information.
However, once she learned the information and her supervisor demanded to know the source, she does need to provide the name. Had the informant not been personally involved in the relocation negotiations, the calculus would be different — in that case, the employee would owe her loyalty to the person she had promised to protect. But the person who told her about the possible move to Mexico was directly involved in those negotiations. By sharing that information, the secretary took knowledge she had only because of her position with the company and disclosed it to someone who had no professional need or entitlement to it. This point was underscored when the employee went above her superior's head and the boss said he could not discuss possible relocation negotiations with someone in her position — confirming that the secretary had been sharing confidential information. It would be relevant to determine whether the secretary had signed a non-disclosure agreement upon joining the company, as that would further clarify the employee's obligation to provide the name.
There are several fields in which superiors can be held responsible for confidentiality breaches committed by those they supervise. As one source notes regarding the social work profession:
"Because of their oversight responsibilities, social work supervisors can be named in ethics complaints and lawsuits alleging ethical breaches or negligence by those under their supervision. These claims often cite the legal principle of respondeat superior, which means 'let the master respond,' and the doctrine of vicarious liability (Reamer, 1994). That is, supervisors may be held partly responsible for actions or inactions in which they were involved only vicariously, or indirectly (Reamer, 2000)."
Although this case does not involve social workers, the principle remains relevant. Because the superior has made promises he may not be able to keep and may ultimately face legal action, he does have a legitimate right to know who breached confidentiality by discussing the possible move with this new employee.
While the employee may disagree with the promises her supervisor made and may dislike the idea of identifying someone who spoke out of turn, she does owe it to her company and superior to disclose the informant's name (Kensicki, 2000). If the secretary shared information about the potential move with this employee, she has likely shared it with others as well. This could trigger a damaging chain reaction: workers could hear about the possible relocation, become disengaged, and cause a work slowdown that harms the very negotiations it concerns. The informant could cause serious operational harm to the company by disclosing information she is only privy to because of her role. This strengthens the argument that the employee must produce the name so the informant can be counseled or disciplined for sharing confidential information (Kensicki, 2000).
The insurance industry frequently grapples with ethical issues similar to the one at hand. One framework for ethical decision-making poses the following questions to the professional:
"As an insurance professional, do you have an obligation, regardless of personal cost, to approach and inform management or regulatory authorities in the event you discover unethical business practices within your organization?"
When ethics are taught or discussed, most guideposts center on the question of what "I" would do. One decision-making framework attributed to Robbin Derry of the American College suggests the following questions:
1) Can the action I am about to take stand the light of publicity? 2) To whom do I owe an obligation in this case? 3) What is the obligation that I owe? 4) Who has rights that must be protected? 5) Is this action a breach of my ethical duty — to my company, or to the policyholder?
The second ethical issue concerns the promises made to the union. Did the supervisor have the right to make such promises knowing the company might be moving to Mexico? The simple answer is no. It was unethical to promise a 30% pay raise and health benefits while knowing the company might relocate. However, the situation is not entirely straightforward. He made the promises knowing only that a move might happen — the negotiations were still ongoing. At the time the promises were made, he had no concrete confirmation that a move would actually take place. Because there was no final decision, he was under no strict legal obligation to withhold those promises. Yet ethical and legal obligations are often separate matters. Ethical obligations are less concrete and do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is nonetheless clear that the promises this manager made were unethical. Promising something with a high probability of never materializing was morally wrong. He was ethically obligated to be honest about the possible move to Mexico before making commitments that depended on that information. It was unfair and unethical to ask a union to accept a wage freeze on the premise that future rewards would come — rewards that, in all likelihood, would never arrive.
This issue parallels the first ethical question in an important way. The supervisor holds a position of power and authority. Had a lower-level employee made the same promises, they would not have carried the same ethical weight, because a low-level employee lacks the authority to deliver on such commitments. This supervisor, however, was in a position where he plausibly could make such promises come true. When the union agreed to the terms, it did so trusting that this man was being honest and that he had the authority to deliver. Ethical behavior is the behavior of an honest individual, and this individual was not honest with the union.
One perspective on how such situations should be handled emphasizes corrective action:
"Our first ethical duty is to correct the improper action as quickly as possible. The duty is there to protect companies we represent and our clients from unethical behavior. My first reaction would be to inform the person who worked for me and give [him or her] a chance to correct [his or her] wrongdoing. If it [were] a company we represent, I would give [the person] the opportunity to fix the problem before reporting it to the authorities. Neither would receive a second chance if [the] wrongdoing was repeated (Kensicki, 2000)."
When it comes to professional ethics, the lines can become very blurred. So many things depend on the motivation behind actions, and without being inside the mind of the person acting, it is hard to know those motivations. This case serves as a useful study in applied ethics, presenting multiple ethical questions with several plausible answers depending on one's perspective and the information available.
You’re 77% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.