Shades of Grey: An Ethical Dilemma—An Analysis of the Case

This case revolves around a very important dilemma that can present itself in any organization. The current case documents the incident in a manufacturing firm, but the dilemma is even more relevant in a service context where work is primarily organized in the form of projects with a matrix structure comprising cross-functional and cross-hierarchical teams. In any sexual harassment complaint filed in organizations, there is always the question of appropriate justice for the aggrieved parties and victims involved and giving the right corrective measures for the accused.

The analysis of this case will consider three major theoretical underpinnings, as discussed in detail in the following paragraphs:

Employee silence: Why do employees not report any misconduct in organizations when it happens?

Theory of justice: The tension between the prevailing utilitarian approach to dealing with an ethical scenario and the Rawlsian justice framework, which defines justice as fairness in which everyone has access to their rights and equality. Will it be fair to punish/not punish the accused?

Sexual harassment in organizations: We will revisit the seminal work of Cortina’s iceberg model of sexual harassment and apply it to the current case.

EMPLOYEE SILENCE OR WORKPLACE ROMANCE

Employee silence is the phenomenon of employees not reporting unethical practices or misconduct in organizations. According to Knoll and van Dick (2012), employee silence could be of four types driven by four different motives of fear (quiescent silence), futility (acquiescent silence), prosocial behaviour (prosocial silence) and opportunism (opportunistic silence). Quiescent silence is active withholding or non-reporting of relevant information out of fear that there could be unpleasant consequences for speaking up (e.g. Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Acquiescent silence is more like a moral disengagement out of a sense of futility or giving up hope for any improvement in the situation by speaking up or reporting about it (e.g. Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Prosocial silence is more driven by tolerance and altruism. Opportunistic silence driven by a sense of opportunism is, according to Knoll and van Dick (2012), of more subtle forms, such as withholding of or provision of incomplete or distorted information, with the purpose to mislead, disguise or confuse.

In this case, as we can see, Kavya has complained about sexual harassment against Rajeev. Based on the interrogations and cross-examinations that happened during the meeting of Kavya and then Rajeev with the internal committee (IC) members, possibly opportunistic silence has been practised by Kavya. Kavya could have easily reported that Rajeev was indulging in sexual harassment by taking sexual favours from her. Still, she ‘didn't because, as Rajeev accused, there was a mutual exchange of benefits, and Kavya saw this as an opportunity. On the contrary, Rajeev also had shown opportunism where he could have checked Kavya and reported her unprofessional or immature behaviour of trying to get close to Rajeev. However, he enjoyed the ride and clearly indulged himself by providing procedural favours to Kavya.

So, Kavya could have said no to Rajeev’s ‘gift-giving’, which included monetary transactions for personal gains, or Rajeev could have stopped Kavya and reported the matter earlier. However, both chose not to report.

All this points to the possibility that the affair of Rajeev and Kavya was a case of workplace romance, which is defined as mutually desired relationships between two people at work in which both the members recognize the relationship to be something more than just professional and platonic and so it may involve some elements of sexuality or physical intimacy (Chory et al., 2022; Riach & Wilson, 2007). However, the prevailing research on workplace romance indicates that its acceptance at the workplace is still debatable. Some who argue in favour of it say that it could be harmless if both parties can maintain their professional boundaries, and it could lead to something long term such as committed relationships or marriages. However, there is more risk than benefit in such relationships. For example, some researchers suggest that women are at a greater risk of negative evaluations and being terminated in such a situation (Quinn, 1977; Riach & Wilson, 2007). Moreover, there could be reputational effects on one’s career if there are reported incidences of indulging in such workplace romances or intimate behaviour with co-workers (Chory et al., 2022).

In the current case, Alpha Corporation has a moral responsibility to set the right precedence through appropriate judgement and outcome in this IC investigation so that such workplace romance (which is dependent on individual choices and not on organizations) should not cause reputational damage to the organization and at the same time justice should be accorded to the aggrieved party.

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! UTILITARIAN VIEW IS INCOMPLETE

This case depicts the classic tension between the utilitarian view and the justice view of an ethical situation. In this case, Rajeev defends himself, saying that he was not forced to but lured into the relationship. Clearly, Kavya put herself in a vulnerable position, and Rajeev, at some level, took advantage of it. The victim, in this case, is Kavya and not Rajeev. Rajeev has violated the working policies in multiple instances to show his favour to Kavya, which does not make him immune to the provisions of the POSH Act. It is not clear whether Rajeev has explicitly or implicitly made sexual advances or asked for sexual favours, but to be in an act of workplace romance certainly raises issues of power play and dependency. Moreover, Rajeev says that he had to give Kavya the promotion because of the sensitivity of the project they both were involved in. Again, this does not justify Rajeev’s acts because sensitive projects are always protected by non-disclosure agreements, so any breach of trust and confidentiality will have serious legal repercussions for the one who has violated the agreement. Rajeev sabotaging a job offer received by Kavya is a signal of power by Rajeev beyond the boundaries of Alpha Corporation and makes Kavya even more vulnerable. It is a clear indication to Kavya that this workplace romance, if it gets over, will damage her career and professional reputation beyond the boundaries of Alpha Corporation. Rajeev’s discussion with the IC members ultimately pointed towards the project that Kavya was a part of, and to justify the actions Rajeev had taken for the greater good of the project, Kavya and Rajeev were involved in. Here the solution to the problem does not lie in a utilitarian view that Rajeev is constantly trying to sell to the IC, but the IC members have to bring restorative justice for Kavya.

It may appear from the account of Rajeev that Kavya may have shown streaks of opportunism and had blackmailed him of his vulnerable personal situation and the existence of a POSH Act as a weapon of retaliation. However, the more mature and powerful individual who could have made the right choices and could have upheld the principles of justice and fairness was Rajeev. But since he gave up his sense of vulnerability and had chosen (even if reluctantly) to be in a romantic workplace relationship, he will have to also bear the risk of such a choice, which includes the fact that there must be restorative justice for the victim, which in this case is Kavya. The application of restorative justice in the case of sexual victims at the workplace is essential to uphold the dignity of the female victim and to safeguard the reputation of the organization. Such a solution may seem unfair to Rajeev, but then people in positions of power also have greater responsibility and accountability to safeguard the reputation of the corporation and not compromise their self-conduct at the workplace.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORK: CORTINA’S ICEBERG VIEW

In the current case, according to the guidelines of the POSH Act, this can only be partly regarded as an issue of sexual harassment. However, extant research on sexual harassment in the workplace should also be referred to understand and determine the quantum of punishment for the current case.

Berdahl (2007) defines sexual harassment to be ‘an expression of power and dominance and a mechanism for protecting or enhancing one’s own sex-based social status’ and such conduct ‘reinforces the existing gender hierarchy, a hierarchy that privileges men’. The Cortina’s iceberg model of sexual harassment illustrates how sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention are only the tiny tip of the ice-bergs (termed ‘come-ons’) and gender harassment is a far more prevalent phenomenon (termed ‘put-downs’) that represents the bottom of the iceberg which may not have sexual cooperation as a goal; instead, it communicates demeaning, denigrating and hostile attitudes based on gender or sex (Cortina & Areguin, 2021).

Rajeev’s act of disclosing the financial transactions with Kavya in front of the IC members and his justifying the act of getting Kavya’s job offer revoked are subtle acts that reveal a form of gender harassment where Rajeev is establishing his power dominance as a male and is denigrating the position of Kavya as not matured enough to take care of herself financially and so she being an opportunist. It reflects a larger problem prevailing in Alpha Corporation where according to the Cortina’s iceberg view, the company might be overlooking the bottom of the pyramid and only acting based on actions visible at the ‘tip of the iceberg’.

ON NEGOTIATING THE SITUATION

This is a multiparty negotiation scenario where the parties are not just Kavya and Rajeev but also the project stakeholders, in which they both are involved. Based on the information about the case context, the deliberations of the IC minutes of the meeting, and the above theoretical constructs, the following alternatives are available for the organization

It is clear from the case analysis so far that Rajeev is at fault, and so he should face appropriate sanctions as per the prevailing HR policy. This will set a strong precedent for anyone in the future. Moreover, the company should start identifying a backup for Rajeev if he is asked to resign or is fired on the grounds of integrity to safeguard the reputation of the company as a safe place to work for all genders.

Since Kavya also could not justify her actions and shared incomplete information with the IC, she needs to be explained in writing about her violation of the company’s professional code of conduct. She should be given an official warning that any subsequent deviance from the company code of conduct may attract sanctions or even termination. There should be a no-tolerance policy clearly communicated across the organization for any deviant behaviour with respect to the company code of conduct. The company talent acquisition team should also start looking for a possible replacement for Kavya if she leaves the job. If needed, she can also be transferred to another project after finding an interim replacement.

Alpha Corporation should consider detailed employee training on the POSH Act and the company code of conduct that clearly states the company’s position in such cases of personal relationships developing in the workplace that transpire outside the boundaries of the organization. Workplace romance is unavoidable at times, but it should not lead to reputational damage for the company in any way due to unwanted powerplay, sexual coercion and gender harassment.

Finally, the company should revisit its policies concerning gender and sexual harassment. The current case indicates the possibility of prevailing gender harassment, which may be getting overlooked as being at the bottom of the ‘iceberg’. It, hence, may be contributing towards the creation of a toxic discriminatory culture in the long run.