Today ended much differently than Jackie thought it would. Yesterday, her manager called everyone into a room and told them that “corporate” believed that misconduct had occurred in the office and that investigators would be on site the next day to attempt to identify the employee (or employees) responsible. The manager made it clear that employees must cooperate fully with investigators and answer all questions truthfully.  

Jackie felt uneasy, as she had witnessed the misconduct—in fact, she is the only witness—so she knows the identity of the wrongdoer, Stephen.  But today, as the interviews progressed, Jackie was surprised to find she wasn't one of the employees selected.  Late in the day, Jackie overheard the lead investigator tell her manager that they were "done" and no other interviews would be necessary. 

Jackie isn't sure what she should do.  After all, her manager only said "cooperate fully and answer all questions truthfully"; it's not her fault she wasn't asked any questions.  Moreover, the investigators said no more interviews are necessary; who was Jackie to second-guess them?  Finally, Jackie doesn't consider Stephen's "misconduct" to be that serious.  She believes other employees have done the same thing, probably more often than Stephen.  None of them got in trouble, so wouldn't it be unfair if Stephen did?

 

What should Jackie do? 

It is never pleasant to “tattle” on someone, whether on a school yard or in a work place, and this is particularly true when it is someone you like or who you think might be subject to unjust punishment. It also can be stressful to be interviewed by an investigator, even when you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. It is critically important, however, that Corp. X employees take their responsibility to report misconduct and cooperate with internal investigations very seriously.

In this case, while Jackie may want to interpret her manager's comments to narrowly mean that only employees who were interviewed need to answer questions truthfully, she can't ignore the other, broader part of her manager's statement that all employees must cooperate fully with the investigators. Since Jackie knows she is the only witness, she also knows that she has unique information that the investigators—and the Company—need to fully, and fairly, investigate the alleged misconduct. Among other things, Jackie should consider that, if she fails to disclose what she knows, someone other than Stephen could be wrongly blamed for the misconduct.

 

But what about Jackie's belief that what Stephen did isn't serious enough to warrant disclosure? Corp. X is a complex and heavily regulated company, subject to a myriad of local, state, federal and even international laws and regulations. Simply put, it is not safe for Jackie to assume she is qualified to judge the seriousness of Stephen's misconduct. In fact, the need to ensure that the seriousness of misconduct is assessed by the right people is one of the very reasons why Corp.

 

X requires employees to report misconduct and cooperate with investigations in the first place. And what of Jackie's belief that other employees have “gotten away with” the same thing so it would be unfair to punish only Stephen? First, even if it were true that others had gotten away with the same misconduct, this does not change the fact that what Stephen did was wrong.

 

Second, if other employees truly have gotten away with it, this itself is an important piece of information to share with the investigators, as it indicates a more widespread problem that needs to be addressed (and, if Jackie does not disclose what she knows about Stephen and he is never identified as a result, she could be helping to create or perpetuate a climate in which such conduct is seen to be acceptable, or at least not detectable, which might encourage more wrongdoing by Stephen or others). In other words, Jackie's concerns about fairness really argue in favor of contacting the investigators, rather than avoiding them.

 

Corp. X's ability to maintain its sterling reputation for ethics is built on the willingness of the vast majority of its employees to do the right thing, and part of doing the right thing is helping the Company detect, investigate and prevent wrongdoing by others. Unfortunately, as Jackie has learned, doing the right thing is not the same as doing the easy thing, but Corp. X relies on employees like Jackie to continue to make the right decisions even when they come at some personal cost.