Ethical dilemma - job related, WWYD?

[PlaceAtTheTable]

NC, obviously. I'll try to keep this brief:

One of my superiors at work, A, is in a bit of a legal pickle with regard to a client contract (not his fault but a series of rather unfortunate occurrences). This is someone who I feel immense loyalty to and for whom I'd happily get up at 3am to help bury a body.

I'm in a position to help due to some information I have obtained in a not entirely ethical manner from a second contact, B. In my defense: this information was offered to me freely and I didn't ask for it. I name dropped at an event and B pro-actively rang to tell me about this.

Basically, I couId kill two birds with one stone and help my A out while also doing B's bidding. Sounds perfect, right?

The problem is, that this would entail forcing a third party, C, into a comply-or-be-fired position that, while technically perfectly legal, is not what our firm states as its policy. I'm essentially meant to force them to solve A's problem against their will to get them out of B's hair either due to re-assignment or by engineering an unreasonable behaviour type of situation that would be grounds for dismissal (B's agenda).

This is obviously rather shady as it is, seeing as the info that B volunteered is highly confidential. On top of that, resolving the situation would probably catapult me into the pole position for promotion, so I personally stand to gain from doing it. Conversely, as A's subordinate, I stand to lose if A has legal issues even though they're not directly related to my job.

OTOH, C has a rep as a problem child and will arguably get the sack either way - it's all a question of when and how grounds for dismissal can be found. He's also legally obliged to do what I would need him to - that's just not what our HR decides to tell our employees (for PR reasons) but is actually very clear cut.

For background, in case it matters: I'm a middle manager in a large corporation, as is C. A is upper management. B's general area is HR.

So, yeah, WWYD? Help friends in need and and leverage what's coming either way or refuse to play ball, lose out and feel superior due to my impeccable ethics?

@VladmirsPoutine, feels rather like it, actually.

I'm a bloody manager, FFS, not a special envoy of the foreign office who deals with shady political dealings for a living! I'm good at personnel development and project portfolio management and stupid finance problems. I was under the impression that this was what they hired me for.

I think on balance I'd go for it, especially as B and A will have your back.

Could C or anyone kick up a real stink? Are they likely to?

@Trills, that was brilliant, thanks!

I think I needed pointing out that, regardless of how I came by the questionable hint, inaction is an active choice as is action.

That makes tons of sense, actually!

It's like the trolley problem, expect on one track there's someone who really irritates you :o

Personally, I'm struggling to see the dilemma here.

Help A. Screw whiny arse incompetent C.

Everyone at work is on the side of doing this.

So, is the idea that C will be bought into your department to solve the legal issues on the contract, and that he will undoubtedly fail and so get sacked (instead of you and A)?

A couple of points, if a contract is failing, generally speaking its not down to a series of unfortunate occurances and surely in a senior position A should indeed be accountable (that is what he is paid for?). Putting someone in, who has questionable performance will only exacerbate the situation. If the contract is failing you need a strong team of commercial and legal staff to sort it out and minimise any remedy.

Whilst I respect your loyalty be very very careful, by engineering a result through something which you yourself admit, could be regarded as unethical, you are laying yourself open to questionable ethics, and whilst in the short term this may benefit you and your boss, believe me in the future people will at some point, question your ethics.

I am a senior commercial manager with a large international ftse 100 company, in my position I have been to taught to constantly ask myself, 'is it legal, is it moral and is it ethical' if the answer to any of those questions is No then I dont do it, irrespective of the outcome.

@Trills, it rather is, actually.

I suppose, A utilitarian approach would therefore favour using the info that benefits A, B and - down the line - myself.

Strict Buddhism would favour sitting on it and go with the default option, though.

I'd find this easier if I didn't over think it, wouldn't I?

Surely this policy at your work is merely the same sort of thing as “flexible working” ie we’re all committed to flexible working solutions and you can request it and we’ll listen attentively but at the end of the day if “business reasons” mean it’s not possible you either need to suck it up (accept job in team you don’t want) or effectively tender your resignation (get sacked)?

Happens everyday, no? Don’t feel too bad!

@Fidddlefaddle71, I'd agree if A was in the least bit incompetent. As things stand, A inherited the failing contract from D who was, indeed, held accountable (and fired as a result) and has thus far been delivering stellar results.

The issue stems from a contractual clause that should never have been signed but was approved by D back in the day. Wish I could go into details, but I can't.

As for your checks & balances: legal: yes! Ethical? Doubtful! is exactly my dilemma here.

@NoSquirrels, pretty much exactly like that - except the firm made a huge deal of the fact that we have these options, whereas the business need bit was a footnote on a couple of management level mails only. If C weren't middle management and supposed to know better they could be forgiven for assuming.

I don't understand why the information you have from B is shady, B volunteered it and is happy for you to use it. Unless it's something you should not have been discussing from a competition law perspective?

If not against the law to have the information you are ethically ok to act on it in the means that best suits your firm and clients surely (ie use it to support A and deal with the longstanding problem that is C)

Also, @Fidddlefaddle71, not quite.

The idea is that C will be forcibly re-assigned against his will in order for A to fulfil a contractual obligation. Whether or not C fails is irrelevant. C (or an equivalent of C, which is not easy to find at such short notice a week before Christmas) being there fulfills the obligation by default. There is no clause related to results.

However, C is under the impression that he gets to turn down the assignment. The info from B enables me to force it.

@Thingvellir, B is in HR and - abbreviated version - told me that corporate would back us in forcing C's hand and threaten termination if C refused due to corporate being keen on sacking C. B also told me how to go about forcing C into the deal in detail and shared some confidential HR only info in the process.

I'm not meant to be privy to this type of information. Neither is A. And it's clear that B sees this as a golden opportunity to rid themselves of the problem child C one way or another.

Hmmm
Go with your gut, but if you have a contractual issue you will just exacerbate it if you put a poor performer on it, risking further breach and damage to company reputation.

You and A need to hit it head on (especially in the case of a rogue contractual clause) and mitigate soonest to minimise the impact. There is always something which can be done, takes some good negotiation, Im assuming you have a commercial team and legal support. I would suggest solving Bs issue and using C will be far more costly in the long run than just resolving the issue yourselves......

Good luck - sounds like a fabulous challenge

It sounds exciting! Can I be your front-row but zero-responsibility PA?

Why would A not be saying "I need an extra person, a person like C, in order to fulfil this obligation" even without you passing on your information?

sorry my last message overlapped with your last message..... so your update makes sense - dunno what else to suggest other than dont break your own ethical code.

All the best

Ooh are you John Grisham? Nothing useful to offer but am now stupidly invested in A
,B, and C's eventual fates

Ah I see. So B is saying on the quiet that the handbook policy doesn't have to be applied in this case - then crack on. It's on Bs head if C retaliates... also if C is capable of resolving contractual commitment, but just doesn't fancy it, hardly playing for the team are they?

I don't see why A is responsible for D's crappy contract negotiations though!

This is fascinating

This all sounds absolutely bonkers. Surely the point is what is the best outcome for the organisation and whose job is it to make this happen.

I think you're being played by B and should steer well clear. Either the information B gave you is confidential in which case B could be sacked for sharing it and you could for using it . Or its not confidential and B could share with A (or As boss) and use it to resolve the situation.

@Trills, A has said that. I've been on special 'find me a person like C - on paper duty, whatever it takes' duty for a week.

That's how I got by the info from B in the first place - I placed a few enquiries and got a response from an unexpected source, suggesting C was a fit on paper and corporate would love to resolve a situation.

I totally agree with @CotswoldStrife . Why would B "pro-actively" ring you to give out an information freely. That person probably is using you to sack C. You can get promotion in many other ways. Success without integrity means nothing (in your case you are indirectly losing it). End of the day how you feel about your success is important. If you are going to feel guilty even for a moment after getting promotion, you have not earned your promotion. On the other hand, lets say you feel guilty but not for long, there is a high chance that you might repeat the mistake in another occasion. Slowly it becomes a habit. This is how people end up doing un-ethical things in life. The fact that you wrote about it here is a good thing. It shows that you care about ethics. Stick to it. You winning should not result in other person losing.

If C weren't middle management and supposed to know better they could be forgiven for assuming.

But as they should know better, then that’s hardly your problem.

Honestly OP - and you’ll just have to trust me on this, I guess - I am usually on the side of morals trumping everything but this doesn’t sound like much of a dilemma.

C can be operationally useful to the company by transferring to A’s team. By the spirit of the policy he can refuse, but operationally he can’t, in fact. Not really your fault or decision?

So all you're really doing is passing on the info that the person they are looking for exists and is called C and can be found in X department.

The fact that C sucks and might leave and everyone would be well-rid of them is just an added bonus.

Yup, so much for 'be sensible, take the job at a FTSE100 company, the career you initially envisages is too political'.

I actually told myself that when I chose between two excellent offers. Graduates, eh?