As an administrator, Bernard conducted yearly evaluations of his subordinates. The evaluations were weighed heavily in management promotion decisions. Recently, two of Bernard’s subordinates Apple and Barry were competing for a new administrative post. Bernard worked well with Apple but Apple’s performance was average. If Apple worked alongside Bernard as a peer, she would not challenge Bernard or threaten his position in the firm. Barry, by contrast, was outstanding; but his tendency to shake things up and push for changes made it very difficult for Bernard to work with. Foreseeing Barry’s potential in the company, Bernard was worried that his position in the company would be threatened if Barry got promoted. On the other hand, Bernard also knew that his peer administrators kept average-performing supporters to themselves through the staff evaluation process.
Should he write a strong annual evaluation for Apple but an average one for Barry? Between Apple and Barry, who would be better for the firm and who would better off with Bernard?
Bernard was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as fairness, responsibility and honesty to challenge. In handling the situation, Bernard should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:
The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving his ethical.
Flora was a production supervisor of a Hong Kong handbag manufacturer at its Mainland production plant. Expansion programmes were being drawn up and much of the firm’s production in the Mainland would move to Vietnam where rent and wages were relatively lower. But reducing the factory size in the Mainland involved a large amount of severance pay. Flora’s boss told Flora to make it easier by cutting off the central air-conditioning so that the workers would find it intolerable to continue working in the heat, thereby resigning on their own. Flora found it difficult to carry out the orders without qualms. But her boss emphasized that the most important thing was to meet targeted rates of return.
Should Flora follow the instruction? Should she at least let the workers know the company’s plan? Would it be detrimental to her own career development by so doing?
Flora was facing an ethical dilemma that might compromise her personal values such as honesty, responsibility, respect and compassion. In handling the situation, Flora should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:
The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for her in solving the ethical dilemma and choosing the best course of action.
Edmond introduced his friend Anthony to work under his wing in a small I.T. company. Felix, the company boss, had complained to Edmond for several months about Anthony’s work performance. Anthony’s procrastination and being unnecessarily thorough was well-known in the company. Felix just managed to tolerate the situation because he did not want to upset Edmond who brought large profits to the company. Felix also told Edmond in confidence that Anthony was not the person whom the company needed and could be replaced by someone who was more efficient and yet cheaper.
As a friend, Edmond wondered if he should personally warn Anthony in advance so that Anthony could get prepared. If Felix was right, terminating Anthony might be for the best interest of the company as well as for Edmond to maintain a good relationship with Felix. On the other hand, leaking out the news in advance might also damage Felix’s trust and affect staff morale.
To tell Anthony or not to tell Anthony? That was the question worrying Edmond!
Edmond was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as honesty, responsibility and compassion to challenge. In handling the situation, Edmond should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:
The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving this ethical.
Felix, a production manager of a large toy factory, had two assistants, Gigi and Gordon. Gigi was the favourite because she was a young charming lady and also a cousin of the General Manager while Gordon was not because he was brash and sometimes outright insolent. They were both responsible for handling the overtime claims for workers on the toy production. The Finance Department had complained to Felix a few times about Gigi and raised queries over some overtime claims forwarded by Gigi. There were widespread rumours that Gigi might have overstated the overtime hours and even forged claims by using ghost workers. Yet, Felix could not bring himself to ask Gigi for explanations but went easy on her by telling her to be more ‘prudent’ when handling the overtime claims in the future. On the other hand, the Finance Department contacted Felix again but this time was about Gordon. They had questions about some discrepancies on the hours of the overtime claims forwarded by Gordon. However, Felix treated Gordon more strictly and was much firmer on the occasion.
Was Felix being equally fair to his assistants when handling the queries from the Finance Department? Would it upset the General Manager if Felix was not kind to Gigi at work, which in return affected Felix’s work prospect? How would it affect his professional image in the eyes of other colleagues?
Felix was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as fairness, responsibility and honesty to challenge. In handling the situation, Felix should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:
The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving the dilemma.
As the Lunar New Year approached, Vincent, an experienced tour guide, expected many inbound tour groups would come and regarded this as a golden opportunity to earn tips from high-spending tourists. Determined to maximise his earnings, he sought every opportunity to guide more tours.
Vincent carefully selected expensive dried seafood as a Lunar New Year gift for Victor, his travel agent’s manager. He hoped Victor would give him preferential treatment and assign him to lead the high-spending customers when arranging tour groups so that he could earn more tips.
Recognising Vincent’s dedication and experience, Victor believed Vincent was the ideal person to guide these high-spending tours. Moreover, he considered gifting during festive occasions was a normal social etiquette, so he did not see any issue with accepting Vincent’s gift. However, Victor reminded Vincent that their conversation should be kept secret to avoid potential criticism.
Dried seafood is an advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO). If Victor, without obtaining the permission of his travel agent, accepted the gift from Vincent in exchange for preferential treatment in arranging the tour roster, Victor and Vincent might breach Section 9 of the POBO. Even if Victor believed that Vincent was capable of leading high-spending tour groups and that acceptance of gift from Vincent would not influence his decision regarding the tour roster, it is no defence for Victor to accept the advantage.
Additionally, according to Section 19 of the POBO, trade custom or practice does not constitute a defence for the offeror and the acceptor of an illegal advantage. Although the gift were given to Victor during a festive occasion, this was not a defence in court. The court would only consider whether Victor obtained approval from his employer.
As a manager, Victor should refrain from accepting advantages from subordinates to avoid any perception of bias and to ensure he can carry out his supervisory duties impartially.
Heidi was promoted recently to personnel manager in a garment retailing corporation. Her company planned to expand by opening several new boutiques throughout Hong Kong. Heidi and one of her subordinates were tasked with recruiting shop managers and sales assistants for these new stores. During the recruitment interviews, Heidi discovered, to her surprise, that one of the candidates was her cousin. Seeing it as a happy coincidence, she conducted the interview herself without disclosing their relationship to the company. She believed she could uphold impartiality when carrying out her official duties and in her eyes her cousin’s performance was the best among the other candidates. She gave very favourable comments on her cousin’s performance during the interview.
Given that one of the candidates was Heidi’s relative, Heidi, responsible for conducting the recruitment interview, was in a conflict of interest situation. Heidi should avoid the situation as far as possible and adhere to the company code of conduct in handling it, such as declaring their relationship to the company.
If Heidi failed to disclose such a conflict of interest, the company could not take appropriate measure to mitigate the risk arising from the conflict (e.g., deploying another officer with no conflict of interest to take up the interview) and even worse, giving rise to allegation of bias and unfairness, and putting the company into disrepute. Moreover, such failure to declare the conflict as required would cast doubt on Heidi’s integrity. Even if Heidi acted impartially and her relative was the best candidate, the conflict of interest could still lead to the perception of favouritism and unfairness to other candidates.
If false document is involved (e.g. falsifying documents to cover up conflict involved), it may breach S.9(3) of the POBO. Using fraudulent means to conceal conflicts during the recruitment exercise for personal gain or to benefit acquaintances may lead to criminal charges such as deception and fraud, and could breach the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance if bribery is involved.
Gloria, a regional manager for a chain retail store, was responsible for overseeing daily operations and staff management across multiple branches. Her duties included handling employee transfers, approving leaves, and recommending promotions.
Gigi, a sales associate, revealed that over the past two years, Gloria had repeatedly demanded gifts from her subordinates, including luxury handbags and jewellery. Gloria implied that only those who provided gifts would be considered for desirable positions, extended leave, or promotions. As a result, many employees, including Gigi, felt pressured to comply to avoid jeopardising their careers. Gloria viewed this practice as a usual way to foster friendly relationships with her subordinates and did not anticipate any problem with accepting gifts from them.
Gloria might contravene Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if she, without the permission of her employer, the retail store, solicited and accepted gifts from subordinates for abusing her official duties to favour some staff members when arranging deployment, leaves or promotions. Subordinates who offered the gifts might also commit an offence.
According to Section 11 of the POBO, once an agreement to offer and accept a bribe is reached, both the offeror and acceptor of the bribe shall commit an offence even if the acceptor claims that he did not actually have the power, right or opportunity to do so, did not intend to do so, or did not in fact do so. Hence, Gloria and the subordinates who offered the advantages might still breach the POBO even if Gloria did not in fact show favour to them in staff management and the purpose of the bribery had not been carried out.
It is important for supervisors and subordinates to maintain a positive working relationship. However, supervisors must avoid blurring the lines between personal and official capacities by accepting gifts from subordinates. This could make them feel obliged to return the favour and ultimately hinder their ability to fulfil necessary personnel management and supervisory responsibilities. Gloria’s behaviour may attract criticism and dissatisfaction from other subordinates and colleagues, negatively impacting management effectiveness. Additionally, it can undermine employee morale and create an undesirable culture.
Ophelia, who worked part-time at a hotel, was responsible for hosting guests during conferences and banquets. Recently, she planned a week-long Japan trip with her boyfriend, which meant she would forfeit a substantial part of her income. Therefore, Ophelia asked her cousin, Ollie, who also worked at the hotel, to forge her signature on the monthly attendance record sheet to make it appear as if she had worked and to deceive the hotel of wages.
However, Ollie believed that forging false records might constitute fraud and firmly refused Ophelia's request. Ophelia then approached Oscar, another part-time employee, with the same request. To persuade Oscar, Ophelia promised to help him buy limited-edition anime figures from Japan. Unable to resist the temptation, Oscar agreed to help Ophelia by forging her signature on the attendance record sheet. Ollie was aware of Ophelia's collusion with Oscar but, reluctant to report her cousin, chose to turn a blind eye to the illegal behaviour.
Ophelia deliberately submitted false attendance record to her company intending to deceive the employer of wages. She might violate Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance or other fraudulent offences as she intentionally used documents containing false information to deceive her employer. Oscar might also commit an offence of conspiracy to defraud. When faced with Ophelia’s offer to help him purchase limited-edition anime figures, Oscar should decline the offer immediately to avoid putting himself in an obligatory position that could lead to illegal acts.
Ollie was aware that Ophelia had submitted false documents to deceive the hotel but chose to turn a blind eye. Deliberately concealing or shielding unlawful behaviour may give rise to suspicions of involvement in illegal activities. Therefore, to safeguard the interests of oneself and the company, employees should adopt a zero-tolerance stance toward corruption and report it to the ICAC.
The hotel was in the midst of a busy banquet season and often hired temporary workers at an hourly wage to assist with operations. According to the hotel's policy, employees who left their posts after midnight were eligible for an additional transportation allowance.
Nancy had been working at the hotel for some time and was highly regarded by the hotel manager, Nick, due to her efficiency and diligence. In order to receive the additional transportation allowance, Nancy asked Nick if she could report her off hour at midnight even though she actually only worked until 11 p.m. Initially, Nick hesitated, but considering the difficulties in hiring within the hotel industry, he eventually decided to turn a blind eye to Nancy’s actions and signed off her attendance records to help her obtain the extra allowance.
Nancy deliberately submitted false attendance records to her company with the intent to deceive her employer of wages. She might violate Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance or committed other fraudulent offences, as she intentionally used documents containing false information to mislead her employer. Even though Nick did not receive any advantages, he might also be guilty of conspiracy to defraud.
As a managerial staff, Nick has a responsibility to carry out his supervisory duties. Apart from performing his own duties, he should serve as a role model and set a good example for his subordinates. It is his duty to oversee the conduct and performance of his subordinates, ensuring their compliance with laws and regulations.
Employees should always remain vigilant and adopt a zero-tolerance stance toward corruption and unethical practices, and report to the ICAC and the company. If employees turn a blind eye or condone illegal behaviour, it not only tarnishes the corporate culture but also harms the company's interests.
Thank you for your feedback.
