Responding to a value conflict at work

◈ 5 cards

Clarify the facts → consult the code or policy → raise it internally → escalate → external disclosure last. Describe, never accuse.

Deciding is half; responding is the other half

The ladder tells you what you will not do. It says nothing about what you will do — and a professional who has decided correctly and then responds badly (a public accusation, a leap to an external regulator, a silent resignation) has turned a value conflict into a career event. This course teaches a five-step response, in a fixed order, each step with a named person you speak to:

Clarify the facts. What exactly happened, when, how much, who said what? Was it an instruction, a suggestion, or a joke? You speak to yourself first — write it down — and, if the ambiguity is real, to the person involved.
Consult the code or policy. Which rule or policy does this touch? The CPA Code, the Student Code, the firm's gift policy, the expense policy. You speak to the document, and, if unsure, to the firm's ethics or HR contact.
Raise it internally. With your direct manager (or, if the manager is the problem, the next person up), in writing, with the facts from step 1 and the rule from step 2.
Escalate. If nothing happens or the answer is wrong, go one level higher: the engagement partner, the ethics officer, the audit committee — whatever the firm's structure provides.
External disclosure — last. The professional body, a regulator, or (rarely) the public, and only when the internal channels are exhausted or unusable. The next lesson sets the conditions.

The order matters because each step is proportionate to what is known at that point. Going external at step 1 punishes a possible misunderstanding as if it were proven fraud; staying at step 3 forever lets a real breach continue.

Worked example — the tickets, responded to

Back to Marcus Doyle and the two Leafs tickets during the Lakeshore evaluation.

Clarify. Was it a gift or a joke? He named the game and offered to courier the tickets, and in the same breath asked what the lease quote was. It was a gift, and it came with a request for competitor information. Write down the date, the time, the words.

Consult. Wren Advisory's gift policy (nothing over nominal value from a party to a live evaluation); the CPA Code's conflict-of-interest rule (210) for the perception problem; confidentiality (208) for the quote he asked about — the lease quote belongs to the client's evaluation, not to Marcus.

Raise internally. An email to your manager, same day: "During today's call about the Lakeshore press evaluation, Marcus Doyle of [vendor] offered two Leafs tickets for the 22nd and asked what the lease quotation was. I declined both and am recording it here. I propose we keep his press in the evaluation on its merits and note the offer in the file." Facts, dates, item, what you did, what you propose.

Escalate / external. Not reached — and not needed. The manager logs it, the evaluation proceeds. This is how most conflicts end when the first three steps are done well.

Describe, do not accuse

The callout below is the whole discipline. "Marcus tried to bribe me" is a conclusion about his motive; it invites an argument about what he meant, and if you are wrong it is defamatory. "Marcus offered two tickets during the evaluation and asked for the lease quote; I declined and am recording it" is a set of facts nobody can dispute, and it lets the manager draw the conclusion. The same rule runs through every rubric in this course that touches an ethical issue: facts, dates, amounts — not motives.

Plan a second one

A colleague's expense claim, which you were asked to code, includes a $180 dinner on a night you know she was at a family event out of town. Clarify: could the date be a slip? (Ask her, neutrally: "the 14th dinner — is the date right?") Consult: the expense policy; the Code's integrity principle. Raise: if the answer does not resolve it, to your manager, in writing, with the claim number, the date, the amount and what she said. Escalate only if the manager does nothing. External: not conceivable at this scale. The exam below asks you to write such a plan for a case where the person involved is senior to you.

Each step is proportionate to what is known at that point. The tickets case ended at step 3; most do. External disclosure is the last step, with its own conditions in the next lesson.