Terrell Manyak, Nova Southeastern University, Speaker at the marcus evans HR Summit Fall 2011, delivers her presentation entitled You Don’t Have to Tell the Truth; You Are Only Obligated Not to Lie

1. Terrell G. Manyak, Ph.D.
Nova Southeastern University
Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship

2.  Ethics by policy:
◦ In situation X do Y
 Ethics by moral code
◦ Do unto others…; Always tell the truth
 Moral dilemma
◦ What we ought to do
◦ What we can do
◦ Situation is more complex
 Let me tell you a story

3. “Most of you are probably aware that our company
is starting to receive interrogatories from the EEOC
that question our personnel actions with respect to
minorities and women. I see these interrogatories
as just the beginning. The EEOC is out to get us.
Well, that’s just not going to happen. We are not
going to lie down and let them run all over us. To
protect the company, I am creating a special task
force to work with the law department. You will be
responsible for responding to each of these
complaints as they come it. As of this time, you
will set aside your other duties whenever necessary
to focus on answering these interrogatories. Is
that understood! We are not going to lose!”

4.  What was our perception of reality?
 EEOC was targeting key companies to set an
example
 We were a political target
 Actively getting our employees to file
complaints

5.  Lawyers would handle adverse treatment
complaints
 HR would handle adverse impact complaints
◦ A game of percentages
◦ Needed quick responses to interrogatories
 First taste of power
◦ They needed me
◦ I knew how to access the computer records
◦ I know something about statistics

6.  Measured reading, writing, and arithmetic
◦ How many dimes are in 80 cents?
 Claimed systematic discrimination since first
used 15 years ago
 Statistics showed
◦ First 5 years were very bad
◦ Last 10 years were OK
◦ Last test was bad

7.  Told the boss that our results over 15 years
showed clear adverse impact
 Boss replied: Don’t we have a 10 year data
retention rule?
 What are you doing with 15 years of data?
 The early data mysteriously disappeared

8.  The company statistics for the last 10 years
met the 80% standard
 The current test is still being analyzed
 The MLBS test was clearly acceptable
 Hmmm
◦ Did I lie? No, all the facts provided were correct
◦ Did I tell the truth? It’s the EEOC’s responsibility to
find the truth
◦ Did I act ethically? You decide

9.  Employed 1,000 security guards
 Lieutenant claimed systematic discrimination
against Jews for 10 years.
 Forbidden by keep religious information
 Told to see Captain O’Connor
◦ Mentally damaged
◦ Hidden to protect him from HR
◦ His job was to keep personal records on index
cards
◦ Sworn to secrecy

10.  Results looked very bad
 Security force was dominated by Irish
Catholics
 The boss reviewed the list
◦ How do you know Sgt. Weiss is Jewish?
◦ I shrugged to protect the captain
◦ Boss: “If he wasn’t promoted, he must not be
Jewish” and changed the person’s religious
designation
 The results were still bad

11.  Collected 10 years of data on every personnel
transaction involving security officers
 Couldn’t analyze because of time restriction
in the interrogatory
 EEOC was free to scrutinize the mountain of
data for discrimination.
 Did we lie? No, all facts were provided
 Did we tell the truth? It was there to be found
 Did we act ethically? Not our job to prove
anything

12.  HR knew there was systematic discrimination.
 What are we going to do for the lieutenant?
 Nothing
 To do anything would admit guilt
 EEOC doesn’t care about him either
 Battle of institutional power
◦ EEOC seeks political power
◦ Company has right to defend itself
◦ Worry about the lieutenant later

13. Attack
Defend
Company Lieutenant EEOC

14.  Two years of success against EEOC claims
 EEOC lawyer to be replaced
 We can’t lose this guy!!!
 Washington official came for a visit
 Boss took him to play golf, complained
bitterly about lawyer being to tough
 Threw a case agreeing to hire female security
officers
 Official convinced lawyer was a tiger
 Did we lie? Did we tell the truth? Were we
ethical?

15.  I enjoyed the power and rewards
 Did I cross an ethical line?
◦ I never did lie
◦ Should I have told the whole truth?
 Lawyers are not required to tell the whole
truth, just not lie
 Did the EEOC’s political motivation move the
ethical line?
 What would have happened if something went
wrong?
 Boss never put anything in writing

16.  Separate ethics from life
◦ Do what the boss tells you to do. It’s his problem.
◦ Can you escape ethical responsibility?
 Ethical righteousness
◦ What you did was simply wrong!
◦ Personal morality may be overriding the need to
protect the organization
 Avoid the ethical dilemma
◦ If it’s legal, who cares? That’s business
◦ Situation may be legally right but morally wrong

17.  What if the EEOC was actually behaving solely
to achieve political objectives?
◦ Would I have been justified in moving my ethical
line to defend the company?
 What if the EEOC was correct in its actions
against the company?
◦ Would I have been motivated to become a
whistleblower to the EEOC?

18.  HR never attempted to correct problems of
discrimination
 HR’s only objective was beating the EEOC
 Realization was a major source of stress
◦ Joined with others to overthrow management
◦ Worked with NY Times to uncover corruption
◦ Political forces stopped revolt
◦ Only choice was to leave the organization
 BUT, an ethical line was crossed
 I’m no longer innocent