Scenario: A Case of False Reporting

Group Size: 4-15

Scenario

“I’ve had it here,” says Athena to Sylvain. “I don’t think I can continue to work for this director. They are a bully, rarely available, and their communication skills are non-existent.”

Athena and Sylvain are close colleagues and long-time section heads at the Department of National Defence (DND) in a large directorate at the National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ). Both are very professional, competent and work well with their staff. However, they are frustrated with their director, who has been in the position for just over a year. The director’s management style is terrible. With less than two years until retirement, the director is just coasting.

Shortly after the director’s arrival, Sylvain and Athena learned through their connections that the director had been reassigned from another directorate because of similar problems.

“I know what you mean,” says Sylvain “It’s obvious that you, I, and the other section heads are running this directorate without any real leadership. Beyond everything else, the director seems to have graduated from the school of unrealistic deadlines.” Athena agrees, thinking of the directorate’s big projects that their section is responsible for.

During a scheduled meeting the following day, the director takes notes as each section head verbally provides a briefing on the directorate’s projects. Athena presents a progress report on their project, stating that it should be completed by the end of March in this fiscal year. Sylvain is a little surprised and, leaning over, sees that the project’s timelines show that it won’t be completed until at least next winter.

Approaching Athena in their office after the meeting, Sylvain asks, “Athena, what are you doing?” “Sylvain, it’s simple,” Athena replies. “I know from reliable sources that the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) is also not particularly happy with our director. The ADM has praised the high quality of our directorate’s work in the past but already openly criticized our director. Today, our director was preparing at the last minute for the ADM’s year-end project status meeting that’s in two days. I figure the report on my project should sink him after a year of incompetence in front of the ADM. If we’re lucky, the director will be ‘asked’ to take an early retirement!”

“But Athena, what if the director decides to check?” asks Sylvain. “That would be a first,” says Athena. “If they do, I’ll claim that I must have mistakenly used a previous draft for my update.”

Sylvain feels very uneasy about Athena’s action but is not sure what to do.

Categories

• Principles: Serve Canada before Self, Obey and Support Lawful Authority
• Values: Identity, Loyalty, Courage, Excellence
• Cultural themes: Service, Identity, Leadership, Teamwork
• Misconduct types: General Misconduct
• GBA Plus themes: Not Specific  
• Audience: Defence Team

Facilitator’s Guide

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the ethical principles of Serve Canada before self and Obey and support lawful authority in this scenario. 
• Discuss the ethical values of integrity, loyalty, and courage in this scenario.

Facilitation Questions

1. What is the problem in this scenario? 
   • Open group discussion.
   • The director’s ineffective leadership and management style has led to several related issues, including employee frustration. Athena's decision to potentially misrepresent the status of their project is dishonest and will harm the director's and the team’s reputation. 
2. What considerations are at play with respect to Defence Ethics?
   • Open group discussion.
   • The director should prioritize the best interests of the organization, its mission, and its employees over their own (i.e., coasting to retirement) – Serve Canada before self.
   • Section heads like Athena and Sylvain are expected to respect the director's authority. However, they should also address their concerns through appropriate channels if they believe the director's leadership compromises the working environment – Obey and support lawful authority.
3. Is Athena's decision to potentially expose the director's incompetence to the ADM justified in this situation? Why or why not? 
   • Open group discussion.
   • Misrepresenting information is not ethically justified. It goes against the ethical principles of excellence, loyalty and integrity. 
   • Athena's plan could harm the director's reputation and their organization's credibility. While the director may have poor leadership skills, harming someone's reputation through deceptive means is not an ethical approach to address the problem.
4. If you were in Sylvain’s situation, what would you do?  
   • Option 1: Discuss concerns with Athena. Sylvain can express their discomfort with Athena’s plan and highlight the ethical and professional implications.
   • Option 2: Discuss leadership issues with the director and the other section heads. Have an open and honest conversation with the entire team. This may resolve issue.   
   • Option 3: Report Athena’s plan to higher authority. This will erode Sylvain’s friendship with Athena, but it may be the right thing to do in this scenario.