Training & Resources > Moderator Scripts

Moderator Scripts

Introduction

Leader: The Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct (DII) was created in 1986 as an outgrowth of the recommendations of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management. Signatories to the DII Principles agree to have a code of conduct, ethics training, internal reporting systems, and other procedures to assure self-governance. In 1994, there were over 55 Signatory companies to the DII, including virtually all of the largest defense contractors. Today, there are over 85 Signatory companies.

This training tape includes 3 enacted episodes. Each episode is fictional and intended to generate discussion of issues relevant to DII signatories. An accompanying guide suggests specific questions that should be considered by groups using the tape.

The episodes are not intended to endorse any position or particular action. For teaching purposes, the episodes obviously include comments or situations that are intended to be provocative and to facilitate an open discussion of the issue raised in the episode.

Episode One: Ethics in Management

Leader: One of the challenges facing DII signatories has been to take ethics programs beyond compliance with laws and regulations. This scene is designed to encourage a discussion on that subject. We join four employees of Winston Industries, a fictional government contractor, as they await the start of an ethics training session. Their discussion is intended to focus attention on such issues as what corporate decisions have ethical content, and how companies can train their employees to respond to these decisions.

Scene opens with three employees sitting around a conference room table, waiting for an ethics training instructor. Another employee, John, enters the room.

John: Good morning.

Linda: Hi, John.

John: I thought we were supposed to get started at nine.

Linda: I guess Jean’s delayed.

John: Well, I tell you, I’ve read all these materials and I’ve thought for some time we’re really missing the boat. I mean of course we have to train our people on the details of government contracting rules, but that should be a starting point. Instead, we teach these rules year after year and we think we’re doing a great job.

Bob: What else are we supposed to be doing?

John: Well, I’m not exactly sure, but we call this ethics training. Well if we learn all these detailed rules about what is proprietary information and what is source selection information, and when you can get it and when you can’t, well is that really ethics?

Susan: I don’t think it matters what you label it, if our people don’t understand it and don’t observe it, we’ll never win a contract and some of your friends and mine are going to end up in jail.

John: No, I know all that, but there has to be something more.

Susan: Like what?

John: Well, you all will probably tell me that even raising this issue is career limiting. But what about the new renovation of the executive offices at a time when we just laid off 400 people. Isn’t that an ethics question?

Linda: John, if you think that’s an ethics question, and you want to ask it, you go right ahead. I promise I’ll volunteer to organize a wonderful going away party for you.

All laughing.

John: That’s just what I mean, Linda. You weren’t entirely kidding. I mean, we had this hotline, but who really asks tough questions in meetings around here? I mean you really think if I or someone else asked this and said it was inconsistent with their code of conduct, management wouldn’t have the least interest in hearing about it. If this were really such an ethical place, we could say these things and people would take them in good spirits and discuss the merits.

Bob: Well, there is a little hypocrisy in all of this. Look at the letter from our CEO. Brad Shaw writes, Winston Industries is committed above all else to fairness, integrity and trustworthiness in its dealings with its customers, its employees, its suppliers, its shareholders and the communities in which it does business. It couldn’t be any clearer. But do you think for one minute when decisions are made around here that anyone asks whether it’s fair?

Susan: I can think of a case. Not long ago, our construction division was incurring substantial overruns on a project because the site conditions had unforeseen problems. The lawyers were clamoring to file a different site conditions claim, but the head of the group analyzed it, decided that we had failed to do the full analyses that we should have, and that it was unfair to the customer under the circumstances to ask them to correct for our mistake. The lawyers hated it. They said it was a winnable claim and that we should have been at the Board of Contract Appeals yesterday.

Linda: Well, that’s very nice, but what about the reward trip to Hawaii for the Raven Project team in the midst of all our layoffs. Is that fair? And what about the annual Winston Golf Tournament where we provide lodging and gifts for those who play? And most of them are our commercial customers. You know we have all this language in our code about business courtesies that are appropriate to the situation. Is this appropriate to the situation? Is this really not intended to obtain favorable treatment from our customer? Come on. Of course it’s intended to obtain favorable treatment. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be doing it. And what about the time our space systems division failed to realize that its key computer algorithm was defective due to our own carelessness. And when NASA found out and screamed, what did we do? Ha. We sent them a framed copy of the contract clause that says in research and development, such issues are not our financial responsibility. Is that fair? Is that trustworthy?

Susan: Wait a minute. That may be fair. There’s a lot of risk in this NASA work and they probably didn’t pay us to take that risk.

John: Well, while we’re making a list of ethics issues, I’ll give you one more. We really do sit on our suppliers. For many of them, we’re their primary customer. And all too often, I’ve heard us just ignore a legitimate supplier grievance with some comment like “Well, you know they need us more than we need them.”