What should Jack do?
Jack is in a controversial situation where he needs to make rational choices that will not only build his integrity but also ensure that the position of the colleagues is not at risk. Jack has been asked if he is excited to work with Mathew again. It is evident that the recruiting manager has reviewed the information of each intern and has noted that the two had worked together before. Jack should inform the manager that he is looking forward to working with Mathew. The acknowledgment will prevent the manager from raising any suspicion.
Ethical Decision-Making Process
Jack is in a dilemma, must make decisions that are well thought, and follows the ethical model. The decisions should be ethical so that it does not create unnecessary conflicts. The decision-making process must be duly followed.
Considering all the facts is crucial in making the right decision. It is evident that the recruitment process is stringent and the company scrutinizes the information for full time hires. Interns like Jack and Mathew do not receive thorough checks since their positions are temporary. Mathew has additionally presented wrong information about his achievements and the roles he has taken in the past. These facts are crucial in the decision Jack is going to make. The impact of the decision should not be an issue, but the ethics behind such a decision matters. If the manager is to make further inquiry about the difference in their credentials, Jack should be able to make an honest disclosure of the roles they played in their previous internship (KPMG 2).
Jack can take two alternative actions in this case. First, he can choose not to disclose the discrepancies in Mathew’s profile and inform the manager that he is looking forward to working with Mathew. The other alternative is to inform the manager that he is not looking forward to working with Mathew again because of the integrity issues (KPMG 3). All these alternatives attract its consequences, and Jack must dig into the alternatives before choosing the right alternative.
The two alternatives elicit ethical issues in different ways. The first decision of keeping quiet and expressing the pleasure in working together will portray Mathew, to be honest, and will guarantee his internship position. The challenge that could arise in this case is when the recruiting manager inquires why the two have different skillset yet they worked at the same level in the previous company. Jack should be ready to present a valid reason to support the choice. The second alternative of expressing displeasure will lead to further inquiry, which could see Mathew being denied the opportunity to work with the company (KPMG 3). The move to give an honest assessment about Mathew will portray Jack as a person of integrity while putting the position of Mathew at risk.
Possible outcomes should be evaluated to determine the best choice whose impact will be fair to all the candidates. The first alternative offers desirable outcomes considering the scrutiny of internship positions. It will be unlikely that the two candidates will undergo a thorough check considering the procedures followed by the recruitment department. The second alternative will lead to more scrutiny, and a possible change in procedures followed in internship positions. The recruitment manager could be forced to relieve Mathew of his position and the position of other interns additionally reviewed.
Recommended decision for Jack
The decision made by Jack should be reviewed to ensure that it follows the required guidelines and prevents a situation that will create controversies in the future.
The decision should be consistent throughout, and Jack must stick to one decision to avoid creating unnecessary issues. Jack’s decision should be able to answer a set of questions to ensure that it is consistent. Do you think that it is right not to disclose Mathew’s credentials to the manager? Do you feel that your action will have an impact in the future? The two questions will reiterate the decision made and the considerations of the decision.
Jack should be aware of the consequences of his decisions and be in a position to defend his choices. Does your decision violate ethical provisions of the company? Are you not afraid that this decision will ruin your reputation? The two questions will address the issue of awareness and will present the views of Jack in regards to the possible backlash of his decisions.
Rules should be followed and should be guided by principles. The decision should be able to comply with existing rules and principles of the company. Does the decision violate the principles of the company? Are there rules that guide disclosure of information in the company? The questions will be able to ascertain if the choice is in line with rules and principles of the company.
Equity ensures that there is fairness to the parties in question. Do you think Mathew deserves a chance to work with the company? This question will address the issue of equity and will present an opportunity for Jack to present arguments on whether the decision promotes fairness and equal opportunities for all the candidates.
KPMG. The Ethical Compass: A Toolkit for Integrity in Business. Case Study, 2012