An adaptation from an excellent book on ethics written by Kennith Branchard and Norman Peak.
A manager under pressure
A divisional sales manager at a large technology company is facing a problem that will be familiar to many business leaders. Sales have been disappointing for six months; his boss is demanding better results, and an important promotion may soon become available. The stakes are personal, too. With one child already at university and two more approaching that stage, the additional income would make a meaningful difference to his family.
He begins searching for an experienced salesperson who can help turn the division around. Before long, he interviews an outstanding candidate who has recently left the company’s largest competitor. The man has an excellent sales record, knows the industry inside out and appears capable of delivering exactly what the business needs.
By the end of the interview, the manager is almost certain he has found the right person. Then the candidate reaches into his briefcase.
An offer that changes everything
The candidate produces a computer disc containing confidential information taken from his former employer. It includes customer profiles and detailed cost information relating to a major contract for which the two companies are competing. If appointed, he promises to hand over the disc, together with further confidential material.
The manager’s decision shows that ethical leadership is not just about saying no to bad things. Sometimes it is easier to say nothing, but you have to do something positive to protect the people who can get hurt.
Yet the offer is difficult to dismiss. The information could help the company win a major contract, secure several valuable accounts and reverse the division’s declining performance. It might also put the manager in a strong position for the promotion he wants—and, given his family’s financial commitments, increasingly needs.
The ethical question is obvious. The answer becomes less comfortable when doing the wrong thing appears capable of solving several genuine problems at once.
Two colleagues, two very different answers
Uncertain about what to do, the manager seeks advice from a senior colleague who has acted as his mentor for many years. The response surprises him. His mentor recommends hiring the candidate before somebody else does, arguing that companies are always searching for intelligence about their competitors. In his view, refusing the opportunity would mean surrendering a valuable commercial advantage.
The manager then discusses the situation with his assistant, who sees it very differently. She warns that employing the candidate would amount to endorsing his conduct. More importantly, a person willing to steal confidential information from one employer could eventually do the same to another.
There is also a risk of reputational damage. The consequences could extend beyond one contract if it became known that the candidate was hired for the information he carried. If it were profitable, the manager’s honesty would be questioned, and the firm would develop a reputation for tolerating dishonest behaviour.
Can dishonesty be hired on certain conditions?
The manager considers whether he could employ the candidate while refusing to accept the stolen information. On the surface, this appears to offer a compromise: the company would gain a talented salesperson without becoming involved in the misconduct.
The difficulty is trust. The disc has already revealed something important about the candidate’s judgement and character. A promise not to bring the information into the business would not erase his willingness to betray his former employer. The manager would always have to wonder whether confidential information belonging to his own company might one day become another bargaining chip.
The decision is therefore no longer simply about whether the candidate is competent at his job. It is about whether exceptional performance can compensate for a fundamental lack of integrity.
Refusing to look away
Ultimately, the manager decides not to appoint him. He also recognises that quietly declining the offer is not enough. The competitor has a right to know that a former employee possesses its confidential information and is prepared to trade it for personal advantage.
He therefore contacts the competitor and explains what happened during the interview.
It is not the easiest course of action, nor the one that offers the greatest immediate benefit. It may cost his division an opportunity to gain valuable commercial intelligence, and it does nothing to relieve the pressure he is facing. What it preserves, however, is more valuable than a short-term improvement in sales: his integrity and the ethical standards of the organisation he represents.
The decision behind the decision
Ethical choices are usually easy when dishonesty has no apparent reward. The real test comes when the wrong decision offers a convincing shortcut to something we genuinely want—better results, greater security, professional recognition or financial relief.
The manager’s decision shows that ethical leadership is not just about saying no to wrongdoing. Sometimes it is easier to say nothing, but you have to do something positive to protect the people who can be hurt.
The candidate had a business advantage. It tested his character and what he had offered. He dismissed the information and told the competitor that success by betrayal was not success he would take credit for.