Answer:
1st Approach
In this case, principle of integrity applies. In line with the global professional and ethical standards you should always act with integrity. This means being open and transparent in the way you work. It also means being honest with others and never trying to hide the facts or purposely deceive those to whom you have a professional responsibility. So Mr. X need to tell the company and let them decide what is best for the company’s interest. Moreover, in the above case Mr. Y has already committed a crime by not disclosing all the information to company regarding his arrest or conviction so this also needs to be taken into account where it is reflected that above person in future could distort the facts for his benefit.
2nd Approach
Yes, because of the following reasons.
- If he does not reveal the information it is against the policy of the organization.
- In future, if this information is revealed than action can be taken against both the gentlemen.
- Mr Y today might be a reformed person but he is being unethical by not disclosing the facts about himself. Thus, he is reformed person, may be merely an opinion of Mr X.
- The company must have taken up such policy because of high ethical standards. If Mr. X is hired and later this information is revealed than company shall lose credibility and thereby several clients. Thus, Mr. X should not take such a huge risk.
Comments
10 responses to “Mr. X worked in the human resources department that was interviewing applicants for a top job in a widget company. After reading many applications, one stood out way ahead of the others. Then he realized that he knew the applicant, Mr. Y. They had hung out together when they were teenagers. Mr. Y had been a wild kid and once was arrested for shoplifting and the possession of drugs. Mr. Y had completed mandatory counseling and, as far as Mr. X knew, Mr. Y had straightened out his life and had done well during the last twenty years. Mr. Y hadn’t indicated in his application that he had once been arrested and Mr. X feared that the company would never hire someone with a police record, no matter how minor or how long ago the offence was. Do you favor Mr. X revealing the information?”
Mojo id-MOJO9908R00A36163556
Read the description of the case studies clearly.
A lot of discussion in the main body has gone into the background check of Mr. Y and whether he is a changed man or not. But the question clearly states: “Mr. Y had completed mandatory counseling and, as far as Mr. X knew, Mr. Y had straightened out his life and had done well during the last twenty years.”
Hence avoid over complications by discussing something which is not relevant in the question.
Sick to the demand of the question, therefore.
The simple question is: “Do you favor Mr. X revealing the information?”
Hence keep the discussion on this part only.
A large part of the answer is over-explained and language is not to the level of the UPSC mains.
Simple line of thought is that: “in the above case Mr. Y has already committed a crime by not disclosing all the information to the company regarding his arrest or conviction so this also needs to be taken into account where it is reflected that above person in future could distort the facts for his benefit.”
MOJO9a31K00N58111047
Sick to the demand of the question, therefore.
The simple question is: “Do you favor Mr. X revealing the information?”
Hence keep the discussion on this part only.
Therefore the 1st page of the answer can be removed because it is not the demand of the question.
Your last paragraph of the answer is the actual answer here.
Expand it and discuss it further.
Read the model answer for more talking points.
MOJO9a02U00D28381180
Do not write the whole question! It is not needed here!
Good discussion.
To the point content.
The approach are perfect in both parts.
The language is perfect for the ethics answer.
The points raised are valid.
MOJO9b03K00A07920521
Avoid over complications by discussing something which is not relevant in the question.
Sick to the demand of the question, therefore.
The simple question is: “Do you favor Mr. X revealing the information?”
Hence keep the discussion on this part only.
Simple line of thought is that: “in the above case Mr. Y has already committed a crime by not disclosing all the information to the company regarding his arrest or conviction so this also needs to be taken into account where it is reflected that above person in future could distort the facts for his benefit.”
Read the model answer
MOJO9930Q00N64198657
The question is not asking what is the course of action that Mr X should take or what are the dilemmas that he is facing.
Sick to the demand of the question, therefore.
The simple question is: “Do you favor Mr. X revealing the information?”
Hence keep the discussion on this part only.
Simple line of thought is that: “in the above case Mr. Y has already committed a crime by not disclosing all the information to the company regarding his arrest or conviction so this also needs to be taken into account where it is reflected that above person in future could distort the facts for his benefit.”
Read the model answer