Question

After numerous campus interviews, Greg Thorpe, a senior at Great Northern College, received two office interview invitations from the Baltimore offices of two large firms. Both firms offered to cover his out-of-pocket expenses (travel, hotel, and meals). He scheduled the interviews for both firms on the same day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. At the conclusion of each interview, he submitted to both firms his total out-of-pocket expenses for the trip to Baltimore: mileage $112 (280 miles at $0.40), hotel $130, meals $36, and parking and tolls $18, for a total of $296. He believes this approach is appropriate. If he had made two trips, his cost would have been two times $296. He is also certain that neither firm knew he had visited the other on that same trip. Within 10 days, Greg received two checks in the mail, each in the amount of $296.
Instructions:
A) Who are the stakeholders (affected partics) in this situation?
B) What are the ethical issues in this case?
C) What would you do in this situation?

Answer 1

Answer:

1. The stakeholders are Greg Thorpe and the two large firms.

2. The ethical issues are:

a. Should Greg claim $296 from each firm?

b. Is he supposed to inform the firms that he had the two interviews on the same date.

c. Do the firms have the right to be informed that the interviews are holding on the same date, so that they can share the out-of-pocket expenses of Greg?

3. I will do what Greg has done.  This looks like the only option to keep the firms unaware of the other interview.  They do not have the right to be informed of my other interview.

Explanation:

In arriving at an ethical decision, Greg should consider ethical principles. In the first place, Greg did not arrange the interviews to occur on the same day.  He could only have shifted the time to suit his schedule.  The firms were not forced to schedule the interview on the same date instead, it was a voluntary arrangement.  No harm seemed to have been inflicted on the firms by Greg's claim.  Greg acted in confidentiality.  This is why he could not share his participation in the separate interviews with the other firm.