I’ve wanted to write about the situation with Jim at Qual Plus HMO. It was a pretty challenging situation and there were a lot of factors involved, two of the most significant being peer pressure and office politics.

When I first read through the scenario, my gut instinct was that it was definitely unethical for Joe to make a motion that the contractors provide their “final bids.” This is especially unethical considering his relationship with ACME construction, that a protocol had already been established for the whole process, and that he had already seen all of the bids.  I could empathize with Jim’s feelings that it was wrong to change the process at the last minute.

I read the outcome of what actually happened in the epilogue. Jim was ostracized and it seemed that he was being “managed out” of the organization. I thought about what (if anything) I would have advised him to do differently.

I worked in the corporate world for about 2 ½ years for a major company so I am very familiar with the political quandaries and the pressure to “play the game” in order to survive. I think that that pressure increases the higher you climb in a company and with that, the stakes also get higher.

What I’ve come to realize is that people don’t like feeling as if someone else “has dirt on them”—information about their behavior or choices that could compromise their career or how they are viewed by their superiors or colleagues. If an unethical choice is being made, they want to feel like everyone is “in on this together” and that nobody is going to be the tattle tale.

Jim did not leave this impression at all. It started when he “questioned the rationale, legality and ethical implications” of the decision to let the contractors provide final bids. Because he was “astonished” by the board’s actions he may have been communicating in an indignant way. I’m sure this would not have been received well.

He then proceeds to speak with the company’s attorney, the CEO of the company and the ethics committee about the decision that was made. No one seems to find anything wrong with what has happened, but at this point Jim may have made too many waves.

In corporate politics, a lot goes on behind the scenes and there can be more going on in a situation than what it seems. The attorney could have called the CEO and let him know about the call from Jim. The woman at the ethics committee could have told someone that Jim called her about the issue and word could have travelled through the “corporate grapevine” that Jim was making a big deal out of nothing and that he’s not a “team player.”

I think that Jim should have initially tried to be much more discreet so that he could still get his questions answered without creating this big stir. I think that he is being managed out because the higher ups have determined that he’s too much of a “goody two shoes.” We already know that there is some unethical behavior going on with Brent (the CEO) and the board members. These guys don’t want to feel like someone is “watching them” ready to call legal or the ethics committee to report their behavior.

It would have been ideal if Qual Plus had some kind of ethics line where employees could call in anonymously and have their questions answered. That way they don’t run the risk of being ousted by their colleagues or superiors and it’s on record that they did the moral thing by calling the action into question.

As far as whether Jim should have fought to the end for what he believed to be right, I think it’s a matter of personal conviction and what you are willing to risk. Hoffman and Nelson say that risk taking is part of integrity (p. 11). But how much one is willing to risk is a personal decision and even ethics can’t define any cut and dry rules that should apply to all situations.

In this case, I don’t think that I would have risked my job to fight for proper procedure in the construction bidding. I do believe that Jim had a moral obligation to ask someone else what should be done and I would have done the same, but it would have been best if he could have done it anonymously or if he could have “kept his cool” a little bit better.  Ethics is very important, but it doesn't always have to be in direct opposition of keeping your job.