This reflection paper examines a personal workplace ethics dilemma involving a colleague—referred to as Ms. X—who repeatedly used company time for personal and outside business activities. The author explores the ethical dimensions of time theft, the tension between loyalty and professional responsibility, and the ripple effects of one employee's conduct on overall office morale and productivity. Drawing on the concept of supererogatory action, the paper considers what an ideal response would have looked like and reflects on the lessons learned about constructively raising workplace concerns. The essay offers candid self-assessment of the choices made and their consequences.
Before beginning my university studies, I found myself embroiled in a rather uncomfortable, albeit unspoken, workplace conflict involving professional ethics and personalities. A member of my office, whom I will call Ms. X, often used company workspace and paid time to conduct her personal business. My nearby work was frequently interrupted by her loud conversations as she discussed her personal affairs and her outside part-time business dealings. She apparently sold products through the internet in addition to holding her position at my place of employment, and she made it very clear — to me as well as to other staff members — that her life outside the office regularly consumed a great deal of her paid work time.
As I was not her immediate supervisor, I initially thought this was none of my business. I tried to ignore Ms. X's ethical infractions, even though I knew that upper management was extremely vigilant about employee time theft and strongly disapproved of employees abusing work time for personal purposes — especially in positions that carried the privilege of minimal supervision in exchange for maximum trust. In other words, it was assumed that employees would use their time for the company's benefit and did not need to be micromanaged. I knew Ms. X was abusing that trust. I also knew that upper management was growing concerned about productivity levels in our particular office across a number of projects. Nevertheless, because Ms. X was never overtly unfriendly toward me, I did not confront her. And because she was well liked by lower-level management and most of the office, I also made a point — one of the few wise decisions I made in this situation — not to discuss my concerns socially with other staff members.
The ethics at issue in this dilemma centered on the use of company time for personal pursuits, and the values in conflict were those of hard work and productivity versus the exploitation of office resources for personal gain. Ms. X was clearly occupying a position, collecting a paycheck, and doing as little as possible before rushing out the door to her next social engagement or returning online to conduct her personal and professional internet business. She was personable and likeable — many colleagues even purchased her web-sold products at the office — yet she was a genuine detriment to the company's productivity. In short, she was someone one might like personally but could not respect as a fellow professional.
Several potential conflicts were inherent in the situation that I was not fully aware of at the time. Ms. X's workplace performance affected not only her own performance reviews, but the overall productivity of the entire office. I was uneasy about this detriment to office performance, yet I was not cognizant of its full effects. I now recognize that it was not sufficient for me simply to do my own job well while she lagged in hers, though I had hoped that would be enough. Her lax workplace ethics directly influenced the tone and morale of the office. When other colleagues observed her allowing deadlines to slip and saw her browsing online marketplaces instead of working, they became more likely to follow suit rather than pick up the slack.
"Inaction leads to discipline for everyone involved"
"Supererogatory action and what should have been done"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.