UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 2.4 Free with a free account
Common Ethical Problems HR Professionals Face on the Job
Human Resources Management · Chapter 2: Understanding Today's Workforce: People, Values, and Workplace EthicsSection 2.4 · lesson 10 of 9115 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Where Classical Scientific Management Came From →← How Employees Feel About Their Jobs: Satisfaction, Commitment, and EngagementNext lesson: Where Classical Scientific Management Came From →
In this lesson
Make competing obligations explicit before deciding.
- Explain HR’s dual loyalty
- Separate legal, ethical, and customary standards
- Work through competing obligations
- Use documentation and appropriate escalation
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,898 words). Read along, or search it.
Understanding Today's Workforce: People, Values, and Workplace Ethics
Ethical Problems in HR Practice
Ethical difficulty in HR often follows from its position, rather than an individual's bad intentions. The employer pays the function, while employees disclose information and expect help with their interests. Those interests usually overlap, but genuine conflicts require a truthful account of whose agent HR is. This lesson names the recurring dilemmas, and separates the legal question from the ethical one. Confidentiality, investigations, information, and documentation all expose obligations that can pull in different directions. We also examine conflicts of interest, whistleblowing, and the limits of professional conduct codes. Legal, ethical, and customary standards are distinct. A familiar practice can still fail the other tests. A structured decision process makes the competing claims explicit, and expands the options available under pressure. Escalation provides further routes, while identifying the point at which counsel must assess legal duties. The fictional case asks how to protect a completed investigation record, without ignoring a director's stated concern.
Dual Loyalty
Represent the Organization, State the Limits
Dual loyalty means holding obligations to two parties, whose interests can diverge in a particular decision. An employee may imagine HR as their advocate, while an executive expects the same loyalty to the employer. Both cannot be the function's exclusive client in a conflict. The honest answer requires clear boundaries. HR represents the organization, acting as its agent within the law and the mandate it receives. That role still carries real obligations toward employees, rather than permission to disregard their interests. Procedural fairness requires consistent, unbiased processes, applying the same approach to cases that are alike. Truthfulness about the role prevents employees from confiding under a mistaken belief about representation. Protecting information also matters, except where another obligation requires sharing or action. State the role openly, because every later confidentiality problem inherits an earlier misunderstanding if it remains uncorrected. Serving the employer and treating employees fairly are usually compatible. Ethical difficulty concerns the points where they diverge.
Confidentiality
Do Not Promise What Cannot Be Kept
The common confidentiality failure begins with a promise, made before knowing whether it can be kept. An employee asks to speak in confidence, and an unconditional yes feels comfortable in the moment. Certain disclosures can create duties HR cannot ignore, including possible unlawful harassment, violence threats, or safety hazards. Title Seven of the Civil Rights Act, from nineteen sixty-four, governs harassment based on protected characteristics. A report can put the employer on notice, requiring an appropriate assessment and response under applicable duties. The correct practice explains the limit before disclosure, rather than announcing it after sensitive information is shared. Information should go only to people who need it to act, while some reports require action once heard. That explanation preserves candor, without pretending the function can guarantee absolute secrecy in every situation. Credible threats and hazardous conduct likewise require attention, rather than a promise that overrides organizational responsibilities. A stated limit differs from a betrayed promise. The timing of the explanation determines which the employee experiences.
Process Integrity
A Preferred Outcome Is Not an Inquiry
Investigations can face pressure toward a preferred result, even without anyone explicitly ordering a finding. Assignment, available time, witness selection, and the question itself can all steer the process. Asking what happened differs from asking whether a valued manager did something requiring dismissal. Process integrity requires consistent questions, equal attention to inconvenient evidence, and the same standard across people. An investigator independent of those interested in the outcome provides a practical protection for that integrity. A different dilemma arises when a decision may be lawful. The practitioner may still believe it unfair. Strict enforcement after prolonged leniency, or a trivial reason for probationary dismissal, can raise that question. HR can record the concern, argue for another approach, preserve a fair process, and state reasons honestly. It must also decide what participation it will refuse, recognizing that refusal can have a personal cost. Lawfulness narrows some options. It does not automatically answer the ethical question about treatment or process.
Information and Disclosure
Separate Evidence From Obligations
References, recruitment information, and later documentation share an ethical question: what is owed to people affected? There is no general federal requirement to provide an employment reference, although liability and state rules still matter. Restricting references to dates and titles may reduce exposure, but does not finish the ethical analysis. Information asymmetry exists when one negotiating party holds material information. The other party does not have it. The employer may know the pay range and comparable salaries, while the candidate lacks that information. Some states now require range disclosure, turning part of the ethical question into a legal obligation. Supporters argue disclosure reduces bargaining outcomes driven by negotiating confidence, rather than contribution. Opponents argue it compresses pay, limits flexibility for exceptional candidates, and shifts rewards into less visible forms. Evidence about pay levels, dispersion, and mobility is distinct from judgments about what candidates are owed. Monitoring similarly raises privacy, candor, and proportionality questions, alongside legal rules that vary by location.
Conflicts of Interest
Appearance Matters, Even Without Corruption
A conflict of interest arises when private interests could reasonably appear to influence an official decision. The test concerns reasonable appearance, rather than proof that the person was actually corrupted. Confidence in one's impartiality answers a different question, leaving the appearance problem unresolved. Hiring or promoting a relative, friend, or former colleague creates a recurring example in HR. Vendor selection raises the same issue, when a participant has a relationship or accepts hospitality. Decisions affecting the participant's own pay or reporting line can also involve a private interest. The remedy is procedural: disclose the relationship before the decision. Then withdraw from deciding it. Attempting to remain involved while promising fairness does not remove the conflict's reasonable appearance. This approach protects the integrity of the process, without requiring an accusation about personal character. Treat disclosure and withdrawal as ordinary safeguards, rather than waiting for evidence that a biased result occurred.
Whistleblowing
Protection Comes From Different Statutes
Whistleblowing means disclosing conduct believed unlawful or seriously improper, internally or to an outside authority. There is no single federal whistleblower statute. Protections come from different laws, with different coverage and deadlines. Title Seven protects opposition to discrimination and participation in proceedings, through provisions enforced by the EEOC. Section eleven c of the nineteen seventy Occupational Safety and Health Act protects safety-related activity. Complaints go to OSHA within thirty days of the adverse action, making delay especially consequential. The National Labor Relations Act dates from nineteen thirty-five, and protects covered employees acting together over employment conditions. Its protections do not require a union. The National Labor Relations Board enforces the law. Sarbanes-Oxley, from two thousand two, addresses certain financial misconduct in the public-company context. State law adds protections, but coverage varies. Missing a deadline can extinguish a protection that initially existed. Determining which statute protects a particular disclosure is a legal question, requiring appropriate advice rather than HR's assumption.
Three Standards
Legal, Ethical, and Customary Are Distinct
Legal, ethical, and customary are three standards, often treated as if they answered the same question. Legal concerns what law permits or requires, established through statutes, regulations, and case law. Ethical concerns what can be defended, through the obligations owed to people affected by the decision. Customary concerns what normally happens within an organization or industry, recording practice rather than justification. Custom is the weakest standard, because a tolerated habit may never have been examined carefully. A lawful decision can be ethically indefensible. A customary practice can be both unlawful and indefensible. Possible harassment plus a confidentiality promise combines legal response duties, with an ethical obligation created earlier. Omitting unfavorable witness evidence compromises process integrity, and can also matter in a later legal proceeding. Hiring a relative raises a conflict even where permitted, while unseen pay ranges can raise disclosure or discrimination questions. Ask which standards apply separately, rather than assuming one answer finishes the entire analysis.
Structured Decision
Name the Conflict, Then Test the Options
Begin the decision process by stating the actual decision, because the presenting request may frame it incorrectly. Name stakeholders and their claims: the employee, coworkers, manager, organization, and sometimes the public. Then state conflicting obligations explicitly, identifying what each requires and what it would prevent. A conflict stated precisely is easier to analyze than a general feeling that something is wrong. Generate alternatives beyond the first two options, because the choice is rarely only compliance or refusal. Test each option for lawfulness, and whether it could be defended openly to everyone affected. Ask whether it would be acceptable with roles reversed, and what precedent it creates for similar cases. Decide, then record the reasoning and the options considered. Explain why some claims were subordinated. An outcome alone cannot show the difference between a considered decision and an improvised one. Review the consequences after enough time has passed, using the case to improve the next decision.
Professional Codes
A Resource in the Argument
A professional code of conduct states standards that members undertake to observe in their work. HR associations publish such codes, and professional certification generally requires adherence to a relevant standard. Codes establish that certain conduct is more than a matter of individual personal preference. They provide language for refusal, and give the practitioner an external standard to cite under pressure. An employer can then see that the objection rests on a professional obligation, rather than discomfort alone. The limits remain significant. A code is not enforceable against the employer applying that pressure. Its sanction generally reaches the member, rather than the organization responsible for the request. It also does not protect the practitioner's job, so citing it does not remove personal consequences. Treat the code as a resource in the argument, rather than a shield guaranteeing protection. Use it alongside careful documentation, alternatives, escalation, and legal advice where the question requires counsel.
Escalation
Use the Available Channels Deliberately
Escalation begins by asking for the request in writing, which tests whether it survives a clear record. The request may be withdrawn at that point, without a confrontation about the person's motives. Next, state the objection on its merits, including the risk to the organization rather than personal discomfort. Make a contemporaneous note of your position, even if the objection does not change the outcome. Escalate within HR to someone with authority beyond the immediate requester, where that route exists. Ethics lines, internal audit, and compliance functions provide further channels built to handle these concerns. Involve counsel whenever the question becomes what law requires, rather than only what treatment is right. External reporting comes beyond those routes, carrying legal consequences in both directions and requiring advice. Refusal remains possible throughout, but it is not free. Define your limits before pressure makes them harder to use. The ordered options expand the available response, without promising that every dilemma has a painless resolution.
Composite Case
Amara and the “Corrected” Investigation
Amara partly substantiates a complaint against a senior manager, at the fictional organization in this composite case. Three weeks later, after the complainant resigns, her director asks her to replace the investigation summary. He refers to a fuller picture, but no new evidence exists, and the request is not written down. Amara owes loyalty and good-faith consideration, alongside process integrity and an accurate record of the original finding. She can request the instruction in writing, and propose a legitimate alternative that preserves both versions of the issue. A dated, signed addendum could state the director's view and reasons, leaving the original conclusion intact. She should note the exchange contemporaneously, then escalate renewed pressure through senior authority or an appropriate channel. A completed file may be examined in proceedings. Questions about litigation and legal duties belong with counsel. Chapter two moved from external forces and exposure, through employee preferences and attitudes, to obligations governing the decisions. Chapter three turns toward the work itself, applying these foundations to the practical machinery of management.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Common Ethical Problems HR Professionals Face on the Job
Does HR work for the employee or the company?
Can HR keep a workplace complaint confidential?
How should a conflict of interest be handled in HR decisions?
Are whistleblowers protected by federal law?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →