I Have An Ethical Dilemma

Published on July 27, 2005 By stutefish In Life Journals

The Founder and President of my company is uveiling a new product today. He's been working on developing this product for quite some time, and is incredibly enthusiastic about its potential.

This product will require a "seed" database of opinions, prior to its public release. He has called a series of meetings, in which he hopes to motivate us employees, and encourage us to seed the database and stay actively involved with the product as it enters the world.

This product is about as far outside our core business as it's possible to get.

So on the one hand, I'm extremely dubious about the value of spending company resources, including my time and energy on promoting it.

But on the other hand, it'll be bad news for my company if it fails. Can I really justify not doing what I can to make this idea work, even if I'm not convinced of its merit?

Comments

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2005

Sell your soul, or not.

It is easy for us to state an opinion. It is not our job or company. I think most will tell you to not sell your soul, and as I have been there, I would second that one.

you have to decide if the company is worth more than your soul. I have been there, and I made the wrong decision. But I lived to regret it. And to go in the other direction.

I would not. That is my opinion.

Sorry I cannot give you better directions.

stutefish

on Jul 27, 2005

No worries, Dr. Guy.

I don't really buy the whole "selling your soul to The Man" concept that seems so popular with anarchists and eco-terrorists these days.

I'm pretty confident that I can back my employer's play without giving up my essential humanity--it's just a job, after all.

My dilemma is that I don't think this product is a good idea for us, and I'm disappointed that the company is going to invest serious resources in it. They would like me to be one of those resources.

My dilemma is this: I have the option of not helping out with this project. Since my success depends in part on the success of the company, should I help or not? Would it be more honorable for me to back my employer's play, or to stick to my own principles and not waste (as I see it) my time?

Hah! Actually, I should shut up now, since I'm posting to JU from the office--clearly an ethical breach of exactly the type we're discussing!

Larry Kuperman

on Jul 27, 2005

Not to be glib, but I believe that if you take your employer's money, you owe them your loyalty. If you cannot abide by their decisions, then you owe it to them and yourself to state that and look for another job.

The worst thing that you can do is to give it a half-hearted effort and then say "See? I knew that it wouldn't work."

I do think that it is just that simple. Give it your best shot...or leave. To do other than that is a disservice to yourself and to them.

stutefish

on Jul 27, 2005

Thanks, Kuperman! I agree with you in principle: If I'm getting paid to do a job, I need to do a full-assed job.

But in this case, support of the new product isn't mandatory. It's encouraged, but not required. I could come to work every day, deliver on each bullet-point of my job description, and collect my paycheck, for the next thirty years, and never get involved with this product in any way.

My dilemma hinges on whether or not I should extend the principle of employee loyalty to this situation. Your comments have tilted me in the direction of extending the principle. I'll probably sleep on it before coming to a decision, though.

PacDragon

on Jul 27, 2005

Well, let's use a little game theory. There are four possible outcomes:

1.) You do not contribute / project succeeds - The project will go on with or without you. In this senerio, you have not wasted any work hours and the company itself does well, which means you do well. Your objection to the usefulness of the project has proven to be incorrect. Result = No work hours lost.

2.) You do not contribute / project fails - Again, you have not wasted any work hours. But the project has now failed, which may impact the company (which is what you feared). Your reservations have been justified, yet there is the small possibility that failure may have been averted had you contributed. Result = Self justification.

3.) You do contribute / project succeeds - You put in the extra work hours and the project does do well, which means you do well. Your objections have been proven incorrect, but you contributed to the success anyway. Result = Contributed to a successful project.

4.) You do contribute / project fails - You put in the extra work hours and the project still fails. Your objections have been proven correct and the company does poorly. On the plus side, your contributions did not result in the failure. Result = Wasted work hours.

If we assume that the project will succeed or fail whether you contribute or not, then not contributing will have no effect beyond not wasting work hours. If we assume that your contribution will be the deciding factor between success or failure, then not contributing could doom the project.

It's my analysis that you should contribute. You cannot stop the project and the worst that can happen is that you have wasted work hours. If you do not contribute, the worst that can happen is that the project fails because of your lack of contribution.

Dr Guy

on Jul 28, 2005

Hey Stute. This is on CNN today. It is not directly to the point of your article, but may help you decide:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/26/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm?cnn=yes

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!