Ethics, Mission Statements, and Charity Corruption...

Someone said in the class on ethics that quitting a job when the requirements change and the company dealings no longer align with your ethical views is a bit idealistic, and that in the "real world" you just suck it up and get on with it (okay, it was phrased more articulately than that, I am going with a summary). I disagree. With a few exceptions when I was desperate for money to pay rent (i.e. agreeing to work for McEvil Empire), I generally am very conscientious about checking a company's mission statement, vision statement, press room, etc online before I ever apply for the job. I am the sort of person who won't enjoy working somewhere if the company culture doesn't jive with my moral outlook, and why go through all the hassle of sending a resume, filling out an application, sitting an interview, and going through training just to quit six months later because it's a dead end job or one that makes you miserable? I don't think that's a totally unreasonable position to be in. I have quit several jobs for similar reasons...I won't give details, but let's just say that I know that I am better off.

Now, upon further reflection, I do admit that once I get in a position in the "real world" that involves, say, paying a mortgage, supporting children or my older family members, etc., I probably would stick with a job despite changing circumstances. However, I would start looking around at other comparable options that would be more fulfilling. In my opinion, when your job starts to sour, that's called opportunity knocking.

Oh, and the scenario about charity corruption reminded me of the struggles that the American Red Cross had after one of the world wars...I don't remember which, offhand...when word got around about how the soldiers were mistreated, etc, etc, and most people lost faith in their services and the donation pool pretty well dried up. It took them years to restore their reputation. So I was thinking that you would definitely do research on a plan to stem the tide of corruption based on the findings of that independent auditor...but yes, of course, with her involved. I think it would be a necessary part of the crisis management of the situation to have a plan to curb the corruption in place before going to the media and admitting you had a problem.

From the scenario outline, the corruption problem was only sketchily outlined, so it would be hard to make a recommendation of action based on the information given. For example, what kind of corruption? Nepotism? Donation money used to buy drugs? Bribery of officials? Sub-standard work by subcontractors? Lack of central oversight? Cultural misunderstandings of policies? What? How extensive was problem of the "many cases" found by the auditor? Everyone? All regional managers? From the top down? Only in some geographic locations? The "investigation" recommended by my group, and I am sure, the other group as well, was more about understanding these issues so as to make a clear media relations plan than it was about stalling and angering the auditor.

Interesting class though...