Am I professionally responsible for actions taken at the direction of mgmt?

Candice, your question has two distinct parts. First, can you be held legally responsible for actions you are directed to take by superiors? The answer is unquestionably, "Yes." If they ordered you to shoplift, would you? If they told you to fire someone because they didn't like Mexicans, would you? Of course you wouldn't comply in either of those cases--right?

The second part is the gray area, the professional or moral arena. While it might be within the rights of a business owner to pay a favored employee extra or for work not done, is it right? I think you know the answer to the question.

If you are being put in either of these situations, now is the time to start looking for a new position. "I was just following orders" didn't work for the war criminals at Nuremberg, and it doesn't work for us today.

Good luck,
Paul

Please visit my CRM/Technology blog at www.paulmyoung.net

I don't think things are quite as cut and dried in this instance Candice and before you start refusing orders it would be better to look at this dispassionately.

You don't say which country you are working in, in many countries these working practices while dubious are pretty common as my experience in the Middle East shows.

So I have some questions for you?

How senior are the managers giving the orders?
Do they have the authority to make these decisions?
For example, I have paid people for time off at times on the understanding that they will make this time up at a later (and unspecified) date, this has been approved at CEO level though, not just by me.
Do you get these orders in writing?
If you object to these orders do you do so in writing?
What is the outcome of this?

Because the moral high ground is a good place to be, but not when it costs you your job.

In this instance I would be in CYA (cover your you know where) mode, and be looking to have these instructions in writing and signed off by my own manager (or their manager if your manager does not have the authority) at which point I would carry out the instructions.

The comparison with nazi guards is both inappropriate and ridiculous, don't follow that path, common sense and a middle ground is a much better place to work from.

Hi Nik,

I'm sorry you found my answer ridiculous and inappropriate. I apologize if I offended you. It appears we come from radically different mindsets. In my world, things -are- rather black and white.

I stand by my answer--and the analogy. Doing what you know to be wrong is not acceptable, regardless of who tells you to do so. Better to be unemployed with a clear conscience than to harm others.

Such has been my belief and practice throughout a long military and corporate career. Your mileage may vary.

Paul

@Paul, thanks for coming back. I too stand by my comments, the suggestion in the post is that she has been asked to process over payments not that she has been asked to lead someone to a gas chamber and watch them die.

The world outside of the West is not black and white, and if she works in Saudi and stays with your attitude, she will find herself permanently unemployed.

Much of the world does not do business like the US and the UK and to try and force it to conform to our "standards" is a nonsense.

Outright illegal? Nope, not going there myself either.

Morally questionable? Depends on the situation, I find it morally questionable that companies don't provide a decent level of sick pay and emergency leave, I don't find it morally questionable to enable a member of staff with a new marriage and a baby on the way to take home a full month's pay and allow them to work it back in the future.

Black and White is fine in the military, it's in fact your only option unless you are the CO, but the rest of the world is bound in shades of grey.

Sorry Nik but I'm siding with Paul on this one. The moral high ground is infinitely better served than the cultural nuances of corruption found in many foreign countries. Not that the US is immune to these practices as we have our share of the unethical and immoral too. We like to put them in jail.

While I do not disagree that each situation is different , e.g. being asked to pay some one more as opposed to being asked to steal, but perhaps a different understanding of US law would be in order. For example is this employee that that Candice is being asked to make a special pay arrangement for of a protected class? If so then the simple payment you suggest isn't so simple and may well create an environment in the workplace deemed illegal by our laws. If Candice does this one unethical act what is to stop her boss from asking her to do more? It is the tactic used by many to absorb the innocent into their unethical and oft times illegal practices.

I'll stand by my answer and I will stand by Paul's. Simply because some feel that because the rest of the world does it that it is okay doesn't wash in my book. In fact it doesn't wash in the mind set of most of American business people. Wrong remains wrong and rationalizing it into some shade of gray doesn't change the reality of it being wrong.

Sorry Don, it's easy to talk from a position of privilege, where you know that you can get another job without getting steeped in "corrupt practices", the trouble is, is that in many developing nations that is simply not an option.

I'm British, in my time in Saudi, I was offered numerous bribes from contracting companies which every time I reported to my superiors who congratulated me and then went off and took the bribes themselves. I feel OK with myself for that, and OK with them for doing what they did as well.

Wrong is only wrong, because in many cases American's (and Europeans to a lesser extent) have defined wrong and are trying to impose it on the rest of the world.

Watch google vs. China, moral highground? Interestingly Google have dropped it as soon as they realised the Chinese weren't going to change their stance for them.

BAE bribed a Saudi prince to sell aircraft.

I could go on and on, but the truth is that large corporates are largely responsible for the corrupt practices in many developing nations.

And those who have to live and work in those countries, have to adapt to their business practices or starve.

The world is not cleanly cut when it comes to deciding the rights of these things, and to compare minor financial impropriety to the holocaust is beyond a joke.

In addition to all that, in many developing nations, large state owned companies are actually used to provide welfare support for large numbers of otherwise unemployed people, so it may be that you process pay checks for 20,000 people who never attend work, but who were never really expected to attend.

Nik your point is based upon a personal political ideology and not based in business or ethical fact. In short you have no argument to support a lack of ethics and values beyond your political bias.

Consequently there is little value in discussing this issue with you as all you have is a rationalization intent upon defending practices that are simply wrong. You can offer up the corrupt and unprosecuted practices of third world and other developing nations along side those from so called developed nations. I'll stand by and with the ethics inherent in the business world I choose to operate in. If it makes you more comfortable to do otherwise then that is your prerogative. I'll not bandy words with anyone who suggests simply because I am an American I can operate from a position of privilege.

Try again later on another subject and keep politics and related biases out of the discussion. You do so much better then..

Don, this isn't about personal ideology, this is also about right and wrong. My standpoint is one of protecting the individual, yours is about protecting a company, mine practicial, yours ideological if anything.

You are priviledged as an American whether you realise it or not, you live in a country with a strong legal system designed to protect the individual when corporate culture is corrupt, though I note that this did nothing for Enron or Worldcom.

Many people simply do not have these privileges and as such, they need to operate in the environment in which they live.

It would be nice if everyone took a stand in these countries, but if you read Ricardo Semler's book Maverick, you can get an idea of how difficult it is to take such a position, as a large and fairly powerful corporate operating in these environs. To suggest that people martyr themselves for a higher ideal which may never be realised but may lead them to starve is nonsense.

First question I have; is it a public or private organization? In either case you have an obligation to inform the leaders of possible legal consequences of their actions, i.e. various forms of discrimination (sex, race, religious), possible morale issues if other employees are aware of the favoritism, possible loss of other benefits if the terms of disability policies aren't followed.

If public, you have an obligation to the shareholders to protect their interest which to me would be just informing the leaders of the consequences. I'm not sure of CA law so you should check out to see if there would be any liability for someone in your position. Also you would want to inform the leaders

Not knowing all the circumstances ( EE's length of service, age, etc) involved I wouldn't push it any further unless you're willing to leave the organization.