Ethical Dilemma

Hypothetically... suppose that someone (person A) was working with an individual employed as the "network administrator" (B) of an organization in some sort of large migration project.

Suppose that B continuously called A for help with simple tasks. A sampling:

• 30 min. phone call walking him through adding/removing a workstation from the domain
• 1 hr useless phone call (on a weekend) trying to partition a dead drive to see if we could "partition around the bad sectors," despite being repeatedly advised that this wasn't going to work
• Called one time early in the project asking how to change user passwords
• Phantom phone call, on a Sunday, claiming that he was unable to login as admin. A remotes in to help, and B's in the middle of adding users. Presumably B left out the domain information, and then remembered...
• Called one time, A answered, and then B said he had to go but would call back later. Has happened more than once.

Suppose that similar calls, concerning such simple things, or for the purpose of helping B apply previously determined information to nearly identical "new" situations... have occurred over 180 times since the middle of July, taking up more than 30 hours of A's time.

Suppose that other problems have been noted. For example, B claiming early on that all software licensing is taken care of, and for A not to worry about it, but then later realizing that he had only purchased the client-side software. Or, B insulating his management from A as much as possible--essentially acting as "project manager"--and yet not forwarding any of A's written preliminary notifications, limitations, and warnings on to management. Then B acting surprised, when limitations and warnings come to pass... perhaps not even having read them himself.

A is painfully aware that B has no business running a network. B has network shares sitting around with no security containing sensitive information, has been notified of this, and has done nothing to mitigate. B claims to have taken an active directory course... lol. B seems to have no concept of technology governance, to include ever patching machines.

Yet, A is aware that B is in dire financial straits, and that B is basically a nice guy. A wants to help B... but feels ethically torn.

Latest:

B hypothetically threatened to bring someone else in, this morning, on an issue that A solved in fifteen minutes over the phone, applying a fix previously used to fix the same problem on a different model workstation. A is tempted by the idea of charging nothing and running away from this 2-month project, but would rather salvage his reputation if that's even possible with B running things over there.

Questions:

What are A's moral/ethical obligations in this situation?

A still, somehow, wants to help B if possible. Would training B be enough to avoid an obligation to inform B's management, if such an obligation exists? B does seem to have trouble retaining information, but written documentation has proven to help...


Thanks,

Tom

 

Some great questions and an interesting situation. When faced with these types of dilemmas I always ask myself 3 questions:

Is it the right thing to do for the company/organization?
Is it the right thing to do for the person/people?
What are the alternatives?

I'm assuming that "A" doesn't report to "B" or vice versa. Do "A" and "B" report to the same senior manager somewhere in the organization?

I'm also assuming that this isn't a union shop and that other work rules don't apply. If that's not the case then there is probably a procedure to follow.

My concern about "A" training "B" is that if somehow knowledge came out that "B" was very much unqualified, and that "A" supported "B" over a period of months, that would not make "A" look very good - at best, not supporting the organization, at worst, doing something clandestine behind the company's back. If the latter, then the trustworthiness of "A" comes into question.

Assuming "A"'s assessment of "B" is correct with respect to technical incompetence, then supporting "B" doesn't help anyone in the long run, least of all "B".

Here's what I would do:

- let "B" know the next time a question or request comes up that this should be part of their core responsibilities, and that it doesn't seem right that they need to ask for help all of the time. Quite honestly, if "B" needs training, it should be done on "B"'s time. I wish him/her luck but am not available to help going forward.

- if "B" persists, I would let "B" know that we need to discuss this with his/her manager as it's taking up a lot of my time. This should end it.

- if I heard about something that truly jeopardizes the company's infrastructure (not just having unpatched/insecure systems but something truly dangerous) I might let my manager know, who could then decide to follow up if/when appropriate. Once this instance left my hands I would let it go. Alternatively, if the organization has an ombudsman or some independent governance function this is another way to report concerns.

Unfortunately, the fact that "B" needs a job doesn't mean that "B" should have this job. I've personally had to fire people in similar situations before and while it is unpleasant, I know that it's the best thing for the company and usually for the person as well - they can find more suitable employment.

 

Borrowing Steve's terms because they flow better, "Alice" is acting as a consultant, and "Bob" works for the company. Bob called Alice and requested help with the migration, although Marty (Management) is ultimately footing the bill.

Alice has recently informed Bob that most support requests must come through email, unless they are emergencies. Alice then follows up with the standard troubleshooting questions as necessary, which it often is. (Where does this happen, how do you reproduce the problem, what have you tried, what happened, what were you expecting, and so on.)

Alice's assessment of Bob's competence isn't an outlier--another consultant of 15 years has a similar view.

There is nothing going on that's immediately dangerous to the organization, however. And, given the situation, it would not be just (or legally wise--given the potential for a "tortious interference with contract" lawsuit, for which truthfulness is not a defense) to bring the situation up with Marty. Bob has been there for years, and on that basis Marty (who holds a Ph.D.) must be considered a knowledgable and sophisticated party, aware of what he's doing and the technical abilities of his employee.

Thanks for helping to clarify the situation,

Tom

 

Alice came to that same conclusion concerning the consumption of good will, and is feeling ready to jump down the rabbit hole...

Given that there is no written contract, and that management (which is very highly educated, and therefore presumably a sophisticated party within this context) has seen fit to permit Bob free reign, Alice has no duty to inform management or, for that matter, unreasonably assist Bob.

Thanks for helping to clarify the situation,

Tom

 

Helping out a coworker is one thing. Propping a coworker up is another. Start advising the individual to contact his supervisor for assistance. Quit taking after hour calls from him and made it clear that your own responsibilites take precedence over his continued needs.

Your evaluations, ratings, bonuses, etc... are based upon your work, shouldn't your coworker's?

While I can appreciate your concern for a coworker, ultimately your continued assistance could place the company in jeopardy should you not be able to provide the needed support to your coworker due to any number of reasons. The coworker needs training or placement in a more compatible position. In either instance, management needs to make the decison and cannot do so as long as they don't observe the real issues.

Lastly, if you are providing training, mentoring, etc... make sure your resume reflects those competencies.

 

I agree with all of the above, but I would add one more thing. I would speak with the individual and warn him that your help is coming to a end. That you will help him a few more times and then that is it. He must stand on his own feet. As kevin said, helping him out is one thing, but you can't carry him on and on ad infinitum. You will begin to transform from a nice guy into a dupe.

 

Don't bail anyone out. Helping is one things, covering for someone is another. There are too many good people that want to work to protect people like that.

 

(*ahem*) Hypothetical....

Bob... has been supported in this way for quite some time. Alice is not the first "supporter." Fred (Alice's former employer) started it, as far as I know. Fred, not surprisingly, threw support of Bob at Alice as, practically, Alice's first or second assignment. Prior to that, Fred had been supporting Bob in this way (and complaining about it) for years.

Fred was getting fed up, and even generally verbally abusive toward Bob, which is probably why Bob contacted Alice for help with the project.

Alice is considering charging Bob's firm $160 an hour going forward, which seems like a more productive way of dealing with the situation--all things considered. Basically "fire the client," or make enough money to pay for all the blood pressure medication and psychotherapy. (Worryingly, this tactic did not work for the poor VOIP vendor...)

Before further action is taken in that regard, however, there is the matter of a $4000 invoice. Bob already "threatened" to call Fred for help with something.... and... they totally deserve each other. (If it hadn't been in a voicemail, Alice might have said something very hurtful and rash.) But, money first.

Fred will very probably screen his calls, and the situation will sort itself out. Either that, or Fred will suffer tremendously and receive little payback (Bob's firm invests almost nothing in infrastructure). It's all good.

Thanks for the wonderful discussion of this entirely hypothetical situation, which suddenly doesn't seem so bad.

Tom