In my last CAREERS IN MOTION article, I wrote about the ‘great resignation.’ The U.S. phenomenon of millions of workers resigning four million per month, some for a better job, others just temporarily dropping out of the job market, and some quitting for good. I also described, in passing, the corollary phenomenon of the quiet quitter, the employee who doesn’t resign but mentally ‘checks out’ at work, showing up and not actually working nor really caring about the job, but caring just enough to collect a paycheck.
There are macro forces that have caused these activities—the pandemic caused massive layoffs, breaching the trust that may have existed between the employer and the employee. It was emotionally crushing for many to be faced with an unknown pandemic and loss of income. That was followed by the most significant increase in employment ever experienced in the country so that now there are, by some estimates, only six potential employees for every ten job openings. Supply and demand firmly reside in the employee’s court, practically guaranteeing that if you quit, another job will be available, likely better paying. Also, we are now a remote workforce economy; no supervisor is looking over your shoulder, ensuring that you are at work on time and are putting in your eight hours. The world as we knew it changed, and the economic, social, and emotional construct between employees and employers also changed.
Beyond the facts, I’d like to discuss some of the ethical questions that frequently arise when talking about jobs, careers, resigning, quiet quitting, and other topics.
Many of my readers know me as a headhunter. For over 40 years, I’ve hired people for my own companies and many other corporations. I also spent fifteen years as the co-founder and director of the Institute for Ethical Leadership at Rutgers Business School, a university-wide center of research and training to promote ethical leadership and to conduct research on the topic.
I assume an ethical person would not want to work for an unethical company—one that cheats its customers, pollutes the rivers, or knowingly sells products that harm people. And an ethical company would want to hire someone who does his job diligently, treats coworkers and customers with respect, and gives “an honest day’s work for a day of pay.”
Ethics is the gray area between legal and illegal. It is cultural and particular to situations. Lying to someone to get them to give you money is different from lying to your child about the existence of Santa Claus. The first can cause significant harm to someone else and could also be illegal, and the latter is arguably less so. But ethics are much more complicated and depend on the culture. Take professional sports as an example. In golf, cheating is frowned upon, and fellow golfers would lose all respect for a golfer if they suspected he knowingly cheated. Even if a golfer breaks a rule and doesn’t know it, he is still responsible and would experience the consequences from his peers and the profession. In baseball, if an umpire makes an incorrect call, and the player who benefits from that mistake knows it, he could never inform the umpire —his teammates would murder him! So, ethics can also be situational.
Let’s explore some ethical issues concerning employment.
Probably the most common question: “is it OK to lie on your resume” or, as I like to call it, ‘pulling a Santos,’ named after George Santos, the elected prevaricator par excellence from Queens, N.Y. No, it’s not OK to lie on your resume. Santos (and the Republicans in the U.S. Congress) have demonstrated that it is not illegal, but it is unethical. Santos was elected for his fictitious business expertise and (um) sports prowess.
Your resume tells an employer (or voter) about your experience as it relates to a job—what you are capable of, what services and skills you possess. If you are hired because of those skills, past experiences, and educational background, and you don’t have them, it seems to me, it is unethical.
However, that doesn’t mean you can’t leave out certain things from your resume. If you’ve been expelled from one college but graduated from another, clearly, you should omit the former and include the latter. If you’ve spent the early part of your career as an actor, or like me, a musician, I would omit the various acting roles you’ve had lest the future employer thinks, “the next acting gig he gets, he’s leaving this job.” Yet, there is a broad, not fine, line between lying and “puff” in your resume; one is unethical, the other almost expected. And the same standard exists for interviews; omitting is not lying, and exaggerating doesn’t cross the line. If you have spent time incarcerated, it is not unethical to omit that from your resume or interview; in most states, that is protected information, and employers cannot ask you about it or make a hiring decision based on that. Other categories are legally protected: race, gender, sexual identity, disability, etc. Removing those identifiers from your resume may be wise if some employers still want to skirt the law.
What about if you are asked in an interview: “how much are you currently earning” or “how much do you expect to be paid?” Once again, in some states, it is illegal for a prospective employer to ask those questions, although reminding a future employer that it is unlawful as your answer may compromise your chances. It’s not unethical to defer the question and ask for a much higher salary—and remember, benefits account for at least 30% above the salary so include them in your answer. If you are pressed for an answer about how much you are or were earning, say, “I was underpaid in my last position; my expectations are for a total package, including benefits of x.” It’s not unethical to negotiate; actually, I think it is admirable. If you suspect your prospective employer is acting illegally or unethically, you may not want to work for that person. Just don’t lie under any circumstances.
A related question of ethics concerns the person who accepts a job offer but then continues to interview and entertain additional job offers before starting (or even after starting a new job). But is it unethical to accept a job, even verbally, and then continue interviewing for other jobs? Perhaps you will get a better job offer; maybe you’ve been waiting for an answer from another potential employer. It is not so simple, and these situations could have significant consequences on your future earning potential and career. However, once you’ve been hired, the employer will likely cease trying to hire someone. If you don’t show up or quit after two weeks, you’ve compromised that employer and the organization. Is it illegal to leave after a week and take another job? Not really. An employer cannot force you to work for them, and if you start working and find out that the job is nothing like what you were told and the employer is a monster, then, by all means, quit—or, if you need the paycheck then spend your time finding a new job.
Having just recommended such a circumstance —quit soon if you were tricked into taking a position radically different than you expected—let me put a finer point on it. When you are “working,” that is, being paid by an employer for a specific job for a particular number of hours per week, then “ethically” you ought to put in that time, diligently. Spending your time on Indeed or other job sites, polishing your resume, or sending out your resume to different employers through your company computer, during work, seems unethical to me. This brings me to “quiet quitting.”
The supply and demand equation facilitates quiet quitting. Suppose an employee does just the minimum or even less work, and the employer knows this. In that case, the employer may rationalize it by saying, “if I fire this person, there isn’t anyone I can find to fill the job. Even the minimum amount of work is better than no work.”
Is quiet quitting illegal? Likely not if one is showing up or “clocking in,” as we used to say. But is it right? Is it fair? Does it pass the “sniff test?” Yes, part of ethics is cultural and situational, but as someone on the latter end of the career cycle, with the remnants of a work ethic, I consider it unethical.
Is ethics in the eye of the beholder? Am I an old fuddy-duddy? What do you think? I want to live in a world where people tell the truth, care about others, think about the future, and feel committed to things beyond their own needs. Arguing the opposite doesn’t make you immoral or unethical. Let me know. Please either post a comment on this site, or write to me at theberkshireedge@gmail.com.
