Dohler was the head of engineering in an EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) company that has several multi-million dollar contracts spread all over the nation. As part of the executives in the company, he has the power to finalize the selection of each and every type of component, whether major or minor, critical part or ordinary component. Also as head of the engineering department, he approves or rejects all decisions with regards to projects from the feasibility stages before any project will be started, up to the construction details and timelines. He holds a lot of power in the company and is limited only by the General Manager of projects to whom he directly reports, and the CEO.

One day, he was approached by an agent for an equipment manufacturing company. This agent gave a proposition to Dohler. The agent said that his company wants to make a deal with Dohler, which to summarize is Dohler will be getting many kinds of kickback if he chooses and selects the types of equipment and components from the manufacturing company for future projects.

The agent knows that the deal Dohler will be making is highly unethical, both NOT outright illegal (unlawful), unless either Dohler or the company reported the dealing (and other future dealings). To entice Dohler more, the agent said that the company is willing to participate in the processes of Dohler’s EPC company in order for the appearance of propriety to be established. They are also willing to give price discounts to the EPC company so that Dohler’s company will not suspect as much that there is bribery and corruption in the selection. The agent said they can do as long as Dholer reveals project requirements to them first so that they can “make adjustments”. Dohler knows this means the equipment manufacturer will basically cut corners on the equipment and give headaches to maintaining the equipment, which is conveniently not a part of Dohler’s department task.

Dohler reflects on the matter. But why? you ask, Here is where it gets interesting for me (and hopefully for you): The reason Dohler is doing a double-take, and not directly shutting down the offer or reporting it to his superiors is because of this:

  1. The bribe to him will definitely add more to his current compensation, and there are more advantages, not just on the monetary front.
  2. He would also be able to quietly lower the project costs, thus saving the company money, which is very visible and will reflect positively on his department.
  3. He will have a greater connection with the manufacturing company, and he thinks that if he “plays nice” with them, it’s possible he may be able secure future work/ appointment in the company as one of their senior executives.

Now, this is where the dilemma is tricky: I believe you can think about it as a python slowly coiling around you, and you trying to breathe, and when the python feels it, coils harder to you. The challenge here is not really just morality. The difficulty of the dilemma is additional layers of human pride, greed, lust, and envy. The “tragedy” in this not knowing the boundaries of motion, where does the “offering” (corrupting action) begin and where does the “accepting” (rationalization action) kick in? and there is where the rub is. We can say that if Dohler “nips the dilemma in the bud” right before even thinking about it, are we sure that offer will not come up again? and will that corruption offer be lesser or greater than before?

I would also like the readers to think about other factors that affect the offer and not just the decider. If the company can save costs, and Dohler’s department (not him personally) would also benefit by realigning the budgets he saves to other expenses, or perhaps bonuses to his people, should he take the corruption offer?

In closing, I honestly do not know (and I actually do not want) to solve this dilemma, because I realized that every iteration for me leads me to question what is really an ethical decision in this type of scenario.