If it were only that simple

Keeping secrets is much more a part of our daily life than we realize. Just about every day we’re “forced” to make decisions and judgment calls about what to repeat and what to keep to ourselves. Often times those decisions are made so quickly and with such habit that we don’t even realize it’s happening. It’s only when something conflicts with our ethics or morals that we take notice. 

Michael Scott from The Office discusses ethics

Every so often a colleague who is looking to “unload” or “vent” tells me something in confidence. Fortunately, the “he said/she said” stories I hear are not a matter of national security or life and death. 

More often than not, what I hear is of no consequence. However, once in a while I am told something that is a little more serious and I am forced to make a decision about whether to keep that information to myself or share it with my boss. I believe that ultimately I owe my allegiance to my organization and therefore many times I have chosen to disclose the news to my supervisor.  

If it were always that simple.
 
It is very easy to sit here behind my computer and speculate about what I would do if I were presented with a serious ethical dilemma. I don’t think it is that cut and dry. Similarly, it is just as easy to look back on a situation with 20/20 vision and critique how it played out. 

For the purposes of this assignment, I am going to attempt to describe how I would ideally like to address a serious ethical decision at work.

In our text, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, we read about Sissela Bok’s ethical decision-making framework. This model presents a three-step process for analyzing an ethical decision. She says that one should ask the following questions:

1. How do you feel about the actions?
2. Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue?
3. How will others respond to the proposed act?  

 
This is certainly a process that I would feel comfortable moving through, however, I would add on as 3b, what will be the consequences of my actions?

Since I don’t intend on being a journalist, I am not going to argue the ethics of reporting the situation or not through the media, as the text did. Rather, it would be more likely that I myself might uncover a similar situation while working at a non-profit and be forced to decide between keeping it to myself and reporting it to my superiors or Human Resources. 

1.  How do you feel about the actions? Because nonprofits operate entirely on other people’s money, I believe that there should be separate guidelines for how that money is spent. I often feel very uncomfortable when I hear how freely non-profit funds are spent on what I deem to be luxuries (first class airfare, 5 star hotels, glamorous restaurants, etc.) In this example I would deem the incident as morally and ethically wrong and would feel compelled to say something about it.

2.  Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise an ethical issue? There is usually more than one way to address a situation and I think, in many cases, going to the media should be a last resort. In this example, since no one was harmed by the incident and keeping it a secret would harm no one, I believe the situation would be best managed in-house either through immediate termination or probation. Therefore, if I found out that my CEO or one of my colleagues were falsifying records for their own personal gain, I would either take it to my immediate supervisor or to Human Resources. As a last resort I may contact my Board Chair if I felt that it was not being addressed at a staff level.

3.  How will others respond to the proposed act? What will be the consequences of my actions? I think if this situation were reported in the media, people would be outraged, and rightly so. How could someone in such a position abuse public funds so poorly? Then it would likely raise other questions, such as, what else is happening that we don’t know about? In this situation, donors and the public are likely to lose faith in the organization and funds would see a decline. This would ultimately have an impact on the constituents who receive support from the non-profit. (Which is why, referring back to #2, I would advocate for keeping the incident in-house.) 

Regardless of laws in place to protect whistle blowers, it is usually the person trying to do the “right” thing that feels the impact. The first fallout that comes to mind would be finding another job. If it were revealed that I was the one that blew the whistle on the executive, regardless of whether it was the right thing to do, it is likely that future employers will question my ability to keep information secret. 

Ultimately, most people are looking out for themselves, and it is these consequences (and not a 3-step process) that many consider before taking any action.