Blog Post: ETHICS in the WORKPLACE - Commenting on the Comments

I was originally going to have one follow-up blog to the original ethics blog.  However, the comments have been interesting so I am breaking up the follow-up into two parts.  Here I will provide my feedback to the comments made to my blog (as of this write-up).  The third and last blog will contain my view on ethics and my comments on the situation presented in that blog and reprinted below:

Situation:  A bank has a strict policy that all tellers must have at minimum a high school diploma or a GED.  There are no exceptions.  In fact, a good friend of yours who was an excellent teller for another bank, just lost his job because of the downturn in the economy, and was turned down by the bank you work for because he did not have his GED or high school diploma.  Your friend was told that every teller in the bank has at minimum a GED or high school diploma, and that the bank even uses that fact when soliciting new accounts.  Today the teller who sits next to you, someone who is not your friend, not even someone you go to lunch with, turns to you and says, "I can't wait.  Next month I am finally getting my GED."

First, in addition to being the author of the book, "How to Get, Keep and Be Well Paid in a Job", which is a work readiness guide; I also developed a work readiness certification training program that was called the best in the Country by a member of the National Skills Standard Board in January of 2003.  I mention that fact because during the initial rollout of that program I trained the teachers.  While instructing them on how to teach ethics, I used a scenario similar to the one presented here.  I did so because I knew the situation would result in a diversity of answers regarding the correct action for the employee to take, with people digging in deeply to their point of views.  However, during all that discussion no one came up with the answer presented by Roosevelt Williams, and I found his response very well thought out.  It is both intelligent and cautious.  Bringing up the specific situation to his supervisor to help clarify a company policy was brilliant.  Management is now aware of a potentially damaging fact, and Mr. Williams was able to bring it to the attention of his supervisor in way where he was finding out about company policies, not directly "talking about" a co-worker.

Both Monica Diaz Veliz and Jan Teegardin made statements that were true.  Businesses often do hire employees below the stated requirements for a job and give the new employees time to accumulate the credentials they lack.  While that could be true in other scenarios, I tried to close that door here when I wrote "that there are no exceptions".  But more important is that I mention that the bank uses the fact that all tellers have at least a high school diploma or GED to solicit new accounts.  If customers found that statement to be untrue, they could become uneasy with the bank.  Even if they do not care whether the tellers have a high school diploma or GED, they may question the truth when the bank informs them that its checking account has no fees.  After all if all tellers really means almost all tellers, does no fees really mean almost no fees?  Losing the trust of customers can lead to customers leaving, and to negative word of mouth on the street about that business.

Adrienne Ishmael's answer shows she is an honest, compassionate person.  In my experience, I have found that the majority of people respond to this situation in a similar fashion to Ms. Ishmail.  Ms. Ismail indicated that she would be reluctant to do anything because she wouldn't want to be responsible for setting the wheels in motion that could eventually get her co-worker fired.  However, she was also very insightful in her answer pointing out that it is possible her co-worker lied to get the job.  In addition to Ms. Ishmael's reason for not taking any action, I have heard responses from people who would not do anything ranging from, "It's not my job to correct a mistake made by Human Resources", to "I'm not a rat, I'm no squealer", to "If I keep my mouth shut no one will ever know that I'm aware of that fact" to more.  I hope after reading my next blog everyone will realize that deciding not to do anything in a given situation is something that has to be thought through.  Not acting on a something does not ensure that there are no consequences for that inaction. 

Finally, Mirna Musharbash took a point of view I respect and have valued in my employees, but may have gone as the band Madness would say, "One Step Beyond".  I like when employees look at situations through the eyes of a supervisor.  It means that they care about the business, take their jobs seriously and want the business to succeed.  So I applaud Mirna Musharbash for taking that approach.  However, there is a fine line between looking through the eyes of your supervisor and taking it upon yourself to make decisions that should really be made by your supervisor.  In this case Mirna was basing the decision to bring this fact to the attention of management on how well that person performed in his/her job.  First, Mirna is not in the position to evaluate a co-workers' job performance, because I know Mirna is busy working and therefore, not in a position to observe all work completed by any co-worker.  Second is that reviewing the overall job performance of Mirna's co-workers is the responsibility of Mirna's supervisor, not Mirna.  Furthermore, even if Mirna was correct in the assessment of the co-worker's job performance that may not be the key factor in management's view of the situation.  As mentioned previously, the fact that the employee lied on his/her job application and the fact that the bank is marketing that all tellers have high school diplomas or GEDs to its customers and could lose business if customers found out that that was untrue, could be the chief concerns of management in this situation, not job performance.