Scenario: False Promises

Group Size: 4-15

You are an instructor at a training establishment. Your second in command (2IC) is a very keen member. You see him as the school’s best soldier.

One day, he reveals that he has been offered a position outside the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). He says that he is in a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, the higher salary would help support his growing family and his partner is very keen on staying in the area due to her own position in the local workforce. On the other hand, he reveals that your immediate supervisor has just offered him some tantalizing incentives to stay in the CAF. Your supervisor has guaranteed him a promotion, sponsorship to undergo academic upgrading and a promise that he will be able to remain in the region.

You know that your supervisor has come under considerable pressure from “higher up” to maintain the current staff levels. Nevertheless, what you hear shocks you because your supervisor is in no position to deliver on any of the promises made. One of your colleagues in Ottawa has recently disclosed to you that your supervisor has been scheduled for a posting during the next posting season. By the time that your 2IC discovers that he has been misled, your supervisor will be long gone.

Categories

• Principles: Respect the Dignity of all Persons
• Values: Integrity, Loyalty, Stewardship, Excellence, Courage
• Cultural themes: Service, Leadership
• Misconduct types: Abuse of Power
• GBA Plus themes: Income, Family Status
• Audience: Canadian Armed Forces

Facilitator’s Guide

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the ethical obligations of “Respect the Dignity of all Persons” in an operational setting. 
• Discuss the ethical values of integrity, stewardship, excellence, loyalty and (moral) courage as well as duty, an expected behaviour in the CAF ethos, in an operational setting.

Facilitation Questions

1. What would you do in this situation? What are the considerations? 
   • Allow open discussion from the group. 
   • Ethical concerns: Your 2IC has been promised incentives that cannot be delivered. These incentives may influence his decision to stay or leave.
   • Personal factors:  You feel that your supervisor has put you both in an awkward position. You have to wrestle with loyalty to your subordinate and loyalty to your supervisor. Your personal values enable you to understand and empathize with your 2IC’s situation. However, you have to be careful before accusing the supervisor of misleading your 2IC.
   • Environmental factors:  This information has led you to believe that your supervisor’s behaviour is unethical. Have similar promises been made to other members? The working environment could be tense if members are aware of these false promises.
2. What is the ethical dilemma in this situation?   
   • This is a competing values dilemma. You are torn between being honest to your subordinate by telling him the truth and loyalty to your immediate superior. You are in a situation where you have to choose between covering up for your superior or telling your subordinate that your supervisor had misled him. As a member of the CAF, you are required to make the best decision for the organization and for the member. How does moral courage factor into this scenario? Would there be any factors in this scenario that could lead to moral injury?
3. What are some potential courses of action that could be taken in this scenario? 
   • Option 1: Delay speaking further with your 2IC until after you have had a chance to discuss the situation with your supervisor. It is possible that your 2IC has misunderstood something, or that your supervisor may be aware of some information that you are lacking. This option would give your supervisor the opportunity to clarify the situation.
   • Option 2:  Caution your 2IC to make sure that he thoroughly explores all possible resources to make an informed decision. For example, you could suggest that he consults with financial aid services, speaks to his peers, or contacts his career manager.
   • Option 3:  Advise your 2IC that your supervisor was misleading him and whatever decision he reaches will be supported.