Ethically suspect situations arise often in the workplace. It is appropriate for all employees to understand an ethical code of conduct when in such situations. This encompasses knowing what is right and wrong, but also when and how to act. When faced with a situation concerning my employer taking unmarked envelopes from vendors suspected to be involved in gang activity, it is crucial the situation is handled delicately.
Prior to hearing my employer’s explanation about the envelope, I would have several choices regarding how to act. I could question my employer about the envelope, as the scenario suggests I do. It would be inappropriate to contact the vendor, and is best, if I am to question anybody, that I question my employer directly. Beyond this, my only options are to contact the Human Resources Department about what I suspect is an issue, or to leave the entire situation alone. Though the scenario suggests I already suspect the vendor of illegal dealings, and the way in which the envelope was passed, unmarked and tucked away hastily, suggest something unethical is taking place, I do not know this for a fact. Unless my employer themselves has given me reason not to trust them based on previous actions, I would likely speak to them about the matter first. At this point, I would not understand ever technicality between corporations and vendors; it could be that I have simply misread the situation. Contacting HR prematurely could lead to my expulsion, and there is nothing unethical about asking about the envelope, or what I have seen unfold.
After questioning my employer, the response given would be inadequate and would change my thoughts on the matter greatly. I can understand vendors donating to charities chosen by the purchasing organization as an act of good faith, perhaps. I would be more inclined to believe a vendor would do such a thing out of the goodness of their hearts. There is not anything technically unethical about starting a bidding war between vendors wherein charities profit; in fact that idea could become revolutionary. However, were this to be the case here, it would quickly become clear to me the vendor would need to donate directly to the chosen charity, showing physical proof of financial correspondence with said organization. To drop off an unmarked envelope filled with money, directly to my employer, implies the vendor does not require proof their money went to a charity. Not only is a lack of proof of transaction unethical in such proceedings, but my employer could just keep the money and choose another vendor. I would be inclined to contact HR, or at the least do further research on financial ethics in the workplace after hearing my employer’s response.
My initial response to the scenario would have been based on internalized behavior values. Throughout my life, I have been conditioned in a manner of speaking to expect the best of people, but also to have all the facts before acting. This integration of standards, as well as my attitude directed me toward asking my employer what the envelope was for, and what the transaction was about. For example, when the envelope was passed, I may not have been clear if there was even money in it. It could have been receipts, or something equally important to the vender-organization relationship. I have also been conditioned to think every unmarked envelope passed hastily from one individual to another is full of money one of the parties likely should not have, and this would be considered an externalized behavioral value. In this circumstance, I wanted to be sure I was not projecting my own ideals about an envelope, which may or may not have been completely innocent, onto an employer who has never given me any other reason not to trust them. Because of my internalized values, I asked before acting more officially in order to gather more information. Unfortunately, after finding their answer to be insufficient, I would likely find my externalized values to not be a projection, but to be accurate concerning the affairs going on between my employer and the vendor.
A few examples of ethical beliefs that would imply I report my employer or, at the very least, question HR about them revolve around how one person is supposed to treat another, lying, and the general morality involved in illegal activities when one is supposed to be the head of a business. Asking about the envelope should have gotten me a straight answer; instead I received no answer several times and then a lie. Not only did I attempt to give my employer the benefit of the doubt, but I gave several chances. Moreover, when it came to covering up the money, a lie involving charities was involved. This is abhorrent at best. Finally, as a business my ethical belief is such organizations should conduct themselves in a manner befitting all ethical policies. Should the vendor actually have a criminal record or ties to a gang would make accepting the money that much more insidious. Perhaps the most frustrating thought about the whole affair is even if my employer is inherently unethical, what is ethical and what is not ethical in the workplace can be taught. On-the-job training can explain moral actions to take in the interest of the company, employees, and the surrounding community, as well as immoral actions. Even if the employer were an inherently unethical individual, as the head of a business, this training would have explained to them anything like this would have been unacceptable.
In sum, while I would begin by questioning my employer, I would end in HR’s office. My internalized and externalized values would be at odds, but only until I heard the answer offered by the employer. At this point I would know the transaction was likely unethical. On-the-job training would have increased my employer’s understanding of unethical behavior such as this, giving no excuse to these actions. A report must be filed.
References
Zhu, Y., Sun, L.-Y., & Leung, A. S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility, firm reputation, and firm performance: The role of ethical leadership. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 925-947.
