long lead times. It then completes the construction under the supervision of EPI engineers.
Upon reaching the construction site, I found that the installation drawings were wrong, and as a
result the subcontractor had not procured some of the hardware. I reported this to George, top
boss at the site, who instructed me to correct the drawings and hand over a list of additional
hardware items to the subcontractor’s foreman. I was to tell the foreman that these items should
have been ordered by the subcontractor. George explained that I must make it appear that the
items were included in the initial hardware list, so that EPI could avoid paying the hefty cost
(about $70,000) of expedited delivery of these items. In other words, George wanted me to cover
up EPI’s mistake and get the subcontractor to pay the additional cost. Hint. First evaluate
George’s action and then address the decision his subordinate must make.
Here, again, the boss asks a subordinate to lie. It is the most common theme in ethical dilemmas
24.* Inside information? Mr. Martin was, until recently, head of investor relations at Verband, a
Fortune 500 company. He had risen steadily through company ranks, due to his infallible
judgment and ability to tell the company story in a most marvelous way. This was not an easy
task, as Verband had a habit of covering up its blunders. The company had major discrepancies
in its accounts and, in particular, lied to stockholders over the years about the lack of progress in
its overseas operations. However, Martin was adept at putting the company in the best light
while diverting attention from any discrepancies. The private banking division at EuroBank,
however, had been scrutinizing Verband carefully on behalf of its clients. The research team
contacted Martin numerous times with penetrating questions, which he always skillfully
deflected. The research team was so impressed that they recommended that EuroBank try to hire
Martin. Due to a very generous offer and rumors that Verband was looking for a buyer, Martin
transferred to EuroBank. He quickly became as successful as he had been at Verband. On one
occasion, the head of private banking offered a wealthy client with large holdings in Verband a
presentation by a former Verband insider, who of course was Martin. Martin prepared the
presentation carefully so as to use only data in the public domain to reveal the serious
discrepancies in Verband’s statements. Revelation of anything more would have violated his
contractual confidentiality obligations to Verband. The difference between Martin and any other
analyst is that, as a former insider, he knew exactly where to look for the discrepancies.
Following the presentation and a series of follow-up meetings with Verband management, the
client sold his large holdings, causing the share price to plummet. Verband was subsequently
taken over at a much reduced price. Martin and his colleagues at EuroBank are convinced that
his presentation to the client was entirely proper. After all, Martin’s judgment is infallible.
It is hard to say, without knowing more about the circumstances of the case, whether Mr.
Martin’s revelations maximize utility. We therefore grant that the pass the utilitarian test.
Verband’s conduct is ungeneralizable, but this alone doesn’t show that Martin’s exposure of their