I work at a research think tank in Montreal, Canada. The location lends heavily to the culture of management at my organization. This is because being a major city, Montreal is home to various cultures and nationalities. Maybe because it would be so awkward with all of us hailing from different backgrounds, our organization has a very informal way of conduct. Likewise with ethicality—discussion, informal and straightforward one is the way to go about.
While the method of resolution of ethical conflicts is via an informal discussion, the seriousness of the issue really dictates who is a party to the discussion. The most basic issues and also the ones that affect almost everyone are discussed in the biggest forum. The organization has been planning to invest in a new location in the center of the city for quite some time. Last week my company had an anonymous drop box complaint. We would all find out in the general discussion at the meeting that was called the next day that the letter was from someone who did not quite like the idea of the costly move. This was especially curious since during public discussions everyone had voted for the best location out of the three options given. In fact the news of the moving was met with considerable enthusiasm and cheer.
Therefore someone had been too reluctant to come forward at that time—possibly afraid of opposing something that was very popular. Among the reasons the letter cited for opposing the move was that many of the private contractors working with our organization were not even offered health insurance in the past. What surprised us all at the meeting was that for the first time the discussion seemed to be superfluous. It was very visible to us that the management had already made up its mind. My suspicions turned true as the meeting progressed. We soon found out that the move had been postponed by an additional six months in order to provide free health insurance for all contractors working with our organization.
