The Ethical Dilemma of the Head of a Technical Institution

 You are the head of a premier technical institution in the country. You are about to chair the interview committee for the upcoming recruitment of faculty positions. A few days before the interview, the Personal Secretary (PS) of a senior government official calls you and requests that you select a close relative of the official for the faculty position. The PS informs you that they are aware of your long-pending and urgently needed proposals for funding the modernization of your institution and assures you that they will get these proposals approved.

a)      What are the options available to you?

b)      Evaluate each of these options.

c)      Explain the most ethical course of action to address the above situation.

 

The above case is a test of my integrity as the head of a major technical organization. Integrity means taking the right decision without succumbing to any temptations or pressures.

Stakeholders

·         Myself as the Head of the Institution

·         The Senior Government Official and Their Relative

·         The Personal Secretary (PS)

·         The Job Applicants

·         The Faculty and Staff of the Institution

·         The Students of the Institution

·         The Taxpayers/Public

a) Available Options

1. Succumb to the pressure and attempt to appoint the relative
2. Acknowledge the request but leave the final decision to the interview committee:
3. Reject the request and provide a clear reason to the PS

b) Evaluation of the options.

Option 1: Succumb to pressure

• Pros:
• Potential for securing funding for modernization.
• Maintaining a favorable relationship with the government official.
• Cons:
• Compromises the institution's academic integrity by appointing a potentially unqualified candidate.
• Damages the institution's reputation and credibility.
• Opens the door to allegations of corruption and nepotism.
• Violates personal values and ethics.

Option 2: Acknowledge the request but leave the decision to the committee

• Pros:
• Attempts to maintain a cordial relationship with the official.
• Possibility of selecting a qualified candidate if the relative is genuinely deserving.
• Cons:
• Risks putting undue pressure on the interview committee.
• Leaves room for the selection of an unqualified candidate.
• Undermines the institution's autonomy.

Option 3: Reject the request and provide a clear reason

• Pros:
• Upholds the institution's autonomy, integrity, and reputation.
• Maintains personal values and ethics.
• Ensures a fair and merit-based selection process.
• Cons:
• May strain the relationship with the government official.
• Might delay or jeopardize funding for modernization.

c) Most Ethical Course of Action.

The most ethical course of action is to reject the request and provide a clear reason to the PS.

Reasons:

• Transparency and Fairness: This option upholds transparency in the recruitment process and ensures that the selection is based solely on merit.
• Level Playing Field: It provides a level playing field for all candidates and protects the reputation of the institution.
• Long-Term Benefits: While it may strain the relationship with the official in the short term, it upholds ethical standards and enhances the institution's ability to attract qualified candidates in the long run.

Communication to the Government Official:

I would convey the following to the government official:

• Our institution follows a transparent and merit-based recruitment process.
• The interview committee has complete autonomy to make its decision without any external influence.
• While I value a positive working relationship with you, I cannot intervene in this matter.

Additional Steps:

• Report the incident to the institution's internal ethics committee.
• Review and strengthen the recruitment process to prevent similar situations in the future.

By adhering to ethical principles and prioritizing merit-based selection, I can fulfill my responsibilities as the head of the institution and contribute to its long-term success.