University Case Study 8: Conflict of Interest and Ethical Implications

This case study analyzes a conflict of interest scenario involving Harshal, an IT professional, and John, the head of the BA unit, within the context of the ACS Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Harshal is tasked with conducting business analysis interviews for a team, and John attempts to influence the process unethically, offering preferential treatment to certain individuals in exchange for compromising the integrity of the assessment. The analysis highlights the importance of honesty, professional development, and professionalism as core values in ethical decision-making. It explores the potential consequences of succumbing to unethical requests, emphasizing the importance of upholding the ACS Code of Ethics to maintain professional integrity and fairness. The case study provides recommendations for Harshal to navigate the ethical dilemma, prioritizing his professional conduct and the fair treatment of all team members. The conclusion emphasizes the need for professionals to adhere to ethical guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain their professional standards.

Running head: CASE STUDY 8
CASE STUDY 8
Name of the university
Name of the student
Author Note

1CASE STUDY 8
Topic: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Introduction
In the following report, a case study has been provided that mentions an ethical issue about a
particular scenario. The case study has been evaluated according to the ACS Code of
Conduct and ACS Code of Professional Conduct. The article contains three values of the
ACS code OF Ethics and around five clauses from ACS Code of Professional Conduct.
Discussion
According to the ACS Code of Ethics, honesty is an important element for
professional conduct which represents the person’s products, services, knowledge and skills.
Harshal needs to appropriately follow his duties and ask John to reconsider the proposal.
Harshal needs to understand that performing his duties honestly is his duty and no matter
what the circumstances, he should stick to his duty diligently. The proposal that is offered by
John is a form of inducement or bribery (Acs.org.au 2018). For his own personal gains, John
is asking Harshal to enhance his reputation at the expense of other people’ reputation. It is not
right in this scenario to review all the members of the BA unit except John and Freda. The
two documents of the SFIA matrices were already filled out which is an act of dishonesty.
Harshal needs to learn the difference between personal and professional opinion and act
accordingly. In this scenario, the best action for Harshal is to either ask John to give the
interview later or tell the higher authorities about the situation. For his personal gain of
getting into the BA unit, Harshal should not listen to John’s advice as it will be ethically
incorrect to do so. Just like John and Freda, there are other 8 members in the BA unit who has
to pass the interview for better prospects. After analysing the situation, the only

2CASE STUDY 8
recommendation for the entire scenario is that Harshal should go on conducting his duties
diligently as the profession wants him to do.
As per the professional development element of ACS Code of Ethics, a person needs
to enhance his professional development as well as the staffs that are present in the
organization. Harshal needs to understand the professional issues and the effect it can have on
the other members of the team (Acs.org.au 2018). He needs to encourage the other members
of the team to continue with their professional development instead of falling prey to wrong
situations like John proposed. John is the head of the BA unit. He has an authoritative role
and asks Harshall about an unethical conduct. As per the code of ethics, Harshall needs to
plainly deny the offer proposed by John. Instead of thinking about his own gains of getting
into the team, he needs to properly support his professional career and continue to upgrade
his skills and knowledge appropriately (Schermerhorn et al. 2014). Considering John’s
proposal would be disastrous as John can again ask Harshal to consider another situation for
his personal gain in the future. If Harshal rejects the offer, then John will understand where
Harshal stands with his opinion. Maybe Harshal will not be shortlisted in the BA team but he
will stay happy that he had associated himself ethically with the ACS code of ethics.
Professionalism is another aspect of the ACS code of Professional Conduct. Harshall
needs to take a knowledgeable, objective, calm and informed stance towards his professional
career which reflects his engagement with it (Acs.org.au 2018). As per the code, he needs to
take a stance against the people who are violating the rules of the ACS code of conduct.
Therefore, the favourable recommendation in this scenario is to decline the offer provided by
the head of the BA unit, John. As per the direction of Alice, his IT head he needs to carry out
the business analysis of all the 10 members of the BA unit irrespective of prejudices and
stereotypes. Considering Freda was tired from the stress leave, Harshall needs to
appropriately interview all the members and consider interviewing John and Freda as the last

3CASE STUDY 8
interviewees. Harshall needs to ensure that the ACS code is properly followed in his
workplace along with his co-workers. He needs to avoid any type of activities that has the
potential to tarnish his professional conduct. He needs to reject the offer provided by John as
it directly contradicts and breaches the Code of Ethics. He needs to understand the value of
ICT and accordingly carry out his professional duty of carrying out the business analysis
properly (ACS Code of Ethics. 2008). If he is facing any problem with his decisions, he
needs to share the situation with the other professionals who are present in his workplace (in
this situation, it is Alice, the head of the IT department). After analysing the situation,
Harshall needs to take pride in his profession and promote the same to his co-workers
through his professional work. John was clearly trying to breach the code of ethics by
influencing Harshall to take part in an unethical activity. Everyone in the BA unit needed to
be treated equally irrespective of their designation. Everyone needs to be treated with dignity
and respect (Giacalone and Promislo 2014). Reconsidering this ethical dilemma of getting
into the BA unit or sticking to his professional conduct will be easy if Harshal understands
the value of ethics mentioned in the ACS code of professional conduct.
Conclusion
To conclude the report, it can be stated that Harshal needs to consider the values from
the ACS Code of Professional conduct to properly assess the ethical dilemma. The article
provides three related values from the ACS Code of ethics and analysed the situation from
every particular element of the code. It would be wise for Harshal to not consider the offer
that John provided him with to prevent further ethical dilemmas like this. His professional
conduct should come first before any situations or personal opinions.

4CASE STUDY 8
References
ACS Code of Ethics. (2008) | Ethics Codes Collection. [online] Available at:
http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/4979 [Accessed 10 May 2018].
Acs.org.au. (2018). ACS - The Professional Association for Australia's ICT sector. [online]
Available at: https://www.acs.org.au/ [Accessed 10 May 2018].
Acs.org.au. (2018). ACS Industry Insights: Richard White. [online] Available at:
https://www.acs.org.au/industry-insights/richard-white.html [Accessed 10 May 2018].
Acs.org.au. (2018). MySFIA (B2C). [online] Available at:
https://www.acs.org.au/professionalrecognition/mysfia-b2c.html [Accessed 10 May 2018].
Giacalone, R.A. and Promislo, M.D., 2014. Handbook of unethical work behaviour:
Implications for individual well-being. Routledge.
Schermerhorn, J., Davidson, P., Poole, D., Woods, P., Simon, A. and McBarron, E.,
2014. Management: Foundations and Applications (2nd Asia-Pacific Edition). John Wiley &
Sons.