Feature: Dilemma Desk: Prof Jimmy Winfield responds to members’ real questions about ethics

Q: Dear Prof Jimmy, I am an accounting trainee. For a reason I don’t understand, I am being paid twice my contracted salary. I literally receive two salary payments in my bank account at month-end. I don’t know if this is an admin mistake or whether perhaps the firm is aware of my difficult financial constraints and is therefore paying me extra. I am a hard worker, so perhaps it is some kind of bonus or overtime pay. It’s probably an admin error, though, so I’m tempted to keep the money without questioning it. What should I do? Kind regards, Wavering Over Wages.

A: Dear Wavering Over Wages,

Wow! I imagine that the first time this happened it must have felt like winning the Lotto One of the smaller prizes, at least. Sadly, though, it’s unlikely this is a legitimate windfall, since most employers will tell an employee before they pay a bonus.

Some ethical dilemmas are complicated because they force you to choose between two actions that both seem right. Yours, I’m afraid, is simpler: what is right is colliding with what is in your immediate interests. Here’s something your case does have in common with a lot of ethical dilemmas: it’s not your fault you’re in this situation. But let me be clear: it will be your fault if you fail to do the right thing now.

Remember, one of the five fundamental principles in the Code of Professional Conduct is integrity: being straightforward and honest in your professional and business relationships. The Code’s conceptual framework also gives us a useful test: would a reasonable and informed third party conclude that there’s an unacceptable threat to a fundamental principle? This surely means you’ll need to nip down to HR and ask whether they’re aware of the firm’s generosity and if it’s intentional.

There is a silver lining. Unlike staying mum and taking the money, speaking up is also in your long-term, enlightened self-interest. Think about how it will look when the double payment is eventually discovered and it becomes apparent that you knowingly said nothing. On the other hand, being recognised as a person with integrity may well open doors for you – because people who can be trusted to behave responsibly are thin on the ground – but even if not, protecting your ethical reputation is worth considerably more than a few months of a trainee’s salary.

Q: Dear Prof Jimmy, I am responsible for giving guidance to trainee accountants and I also contribute to their performance ratings. Of course, I endeavour to contribute to each one of them as much as possible. However, when I learn of some of their stories and motivations, my understanding of the challenges that some of them face makes me feel an even greater sense of responsibility for their success. Sometimes I’m responsible for a trainee who’s eager to develop, but who does not display a competence well the first time. Is it unfair for me to give them an additional opportunity to do so? Should matters such as them recently losing a parent or there being a language barrier impact my response? I would argue yes, but I also understand that there may be other points of view.

Sincerely, Conflicted By Compassion

A: Dear Conflicted by Compassion,

It sounds to me like your trainees are lucky to have you as their mentor! You’re doing two things correctly here: making what I think is the right ethical decision, and, importantly, not simply landing on it by accident. You are recognising the ethical dimension of your choice to treat different trainees differently, while keeping an open mind about whether that different treatment is truly justified.

What is pushing you to think hard here is what I described in my response to Wavering above: you’re caught between two seemingly right ideas – treating everyone equally and giving everyone a genuinely equal opportunity to succeed. And those aren’t always the same thing.

You say that you would ’argue‘ for your choice, and that’s exactly what you should do: identify the option for which you can make the most convincing ethical argument. You haven’t mentioned what yours would be, so let me suggest one inspired by the philosopher John Rawls, who argued that a just society should not allow morally arbitrary factors to unfairly determine our prospects in life – factors such as the social circumstances into which we were born, or, say, our height.

Perhaps you have seen the meme of three boys of different heights watching a sporting event over a fence. In the first frame, each has a box to stand on, but the shortest still cannot see. In the second, the same resources – the three boxes – have been distributed differently: the shortest boy gets two, the middle boy gets one, and the tallest gets what he needs too: no box at all. The point is that fairness doesn’t always mean identical treatment.

So too, it can be fair for you to allocate more of your most precious resource – time – to a trainee who would especially benefit from it. Just note that I’m not arguing for lowering the fence, which is presumably set at the right height. Bereavement, a language barrier or another relevant circumstance can be good reasons to give someone another chance to demonstrate competence; but these things would not justify deciding that a trainee has demonstrated competence when they haven’t.

Give people the resources they reasonably need – but don’t lower the standard.

Q: Dear Prof Jimmy, my boss recently brought in a new employee who they worked with previously for five years at a different company. The two of them seem to be personal friends. The new employee is under pressure to deliver on things quickly. To do so, they have been hiring family and friends, but my boss appears not to know that these are family and friends. I’ve heard complaints from some staff that the family and friends are not qualified, are paid more, and are not going through normal recruitment processes. I’m unsure how to navigate the situation: should I speak to the new employee or my boss about it directly?

Best, Fretting Over Favouritism

A: Dear Fretting Over Favouritism,

Yes, absolutely! You should speak up. But maybe not for the reason you’re thinking. Your message is peppered with phrases like ’seem to be,‘ ’appears not to know‘ and ’I’ve heard‘ – all of which should make you cautious about concluding that wrongdoing has occurred.

The Code requires you to have an ’inquiring mind,‘ which essentially involves two things, only one of which you’re getting right so far: being alert to a need for further investigation and action. The fact that you wrote to me about this shows that you didn’t just bury your head in the sand when you became aware of a possible ethical issue. Great! But where you need to focus your attention now is on the second part of having an inquiring mind: considering the ’source, relevance and sufficiency‘ of the information you have. Office gossip may thrive on hearsay, but professional judgement shouldn’t: our conclusions can lead to actions with real consequences for other people. Don’t make first-hand ethical judgements from second-hand information.

So, by all means, speak to the people at the centre of the situation. And also look for verifiable information: what recruitment processes were followed, what conflicts were disclosed, and whether there are legitimate explanations for what you’ve heard. You may discover a serious ethical problem. You may equally discover a storm in a teacup. An inquiring mind doesn’t ignore warning signs – but neither does it confuse suspicion with fact.

If you have an ethics question for Prof Jimmy, write to him at jimmy.winfield@uct.ac.za. All queries will be treated confidentially.

Author
Prof Jimmy Winfield is a UCT Distinguished Teacher, a winner of the CHE’s National Excellence in Teaching and Learning Award, and the primary author of Business Ethics & Other Paradoxes. He and the team at Skillfully have built the ethics course Decoding the Code, available now on eVolve, with each module including guidance on how to create your ethics reflection for CPD.