Terry, who has been working at a firm for a number of years, has lied about graduating from university. He is an integral part of the team and the firm has made a mistake by not checking Terry's credentials. What do you do? Read the CISI's verdict
In this scenario you are a partner in a financial planning practice. You have employed Terry as a paraplanner for a number of years, having joined your firm after attending university. He has since achieved Accredited ParaplannerTM status.
Terry is an integral part of your team. He is well regarded by his colleagues and your two business partners, and you have always found him to be reliable and trustworthy. You supported him in his studies with a view to offering him a longer term career.
You and your partners now feel that the time is right to offer Terry the opportunity to move into an advisory role, which would involve meeting clients and would require him to become an Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Approved Person. In preparation, he will need to take a further examination and you recommend that he obtain CISI membership.
You meet Terry to discuss your plans and offer to pay his CISI joining and membership fees. Terry responds positively and asks what kind of qualifications he will need to become a professional CISI member. But, he seems less than his usual enthusiastic self. You seek to reassure him by saying that you are confident that with his background and paraplanner qualification he will have no trouble with the exams, which will include passing the CISI’s IntegrityMatters test before his membership is confirmed. However, Terry does not look much more cheerful after your pep talk and simply says “thank you”.
You arrange for payment of Terry’s CISI joining and membership fees and tell him to devote some time to sitting IntegrityMatters. A few weeks later, Terry asks to talk to you. You notice that he looks uncomfortable. He tells you he has just completed the IntegrityMatters test and that he passed with full marks. You are about to congratulate him, but before you can do so, he tells you in an emotional manner that taking the test has prompted him to come clean about something which has been weighing on his mind for some time.
Terry confesses that he never actually graduated from university. He explains his mother was diagnosed with cancer mid-way through his final year and he went home to support his family. During this difficult time, he did not feel able to return for the remaining few months of university and missed his final exams.
He admits that he wrote his CV to make it look as though he had graduated and feels terrible, but tries to excuse himself by saying that he has not claimed to have a degree during the time he has been with the firm. “I know I should have told you before, but the more time passed, the more difficult it became. I would not blame you if you want to fire me.”
You are taken aback and tell Terry that you will need time to consider what he has told you before making any decisions and discuss it with your partners. You suggest that he takes the rest of the day off. You discuss Terry’s confession with your partners who all express surprise and some dismay. After considering what to do, you identify four potential courses of action:
A) You have sympathy for the situation Terry was in when receiving news of his mother’s cancer while at university. When hiring Terry you did not ask him to produce his degree certificate and so you are also partly culpable for the current state of affairs. He has been a good and loyal worker, and consequently his employment should be allowed to continue, as well as his professional CISI membership.
B) You consider that although Terry has not been overtly dishonest, he has not been as open and honest as a position with your firm requires. Therefore, regardless of the circumstances and his good performance, his employment should be terminated. You will ask him to reimburse the fees you have paid for his CISI membership.
C) Terry’s current role is not dependent upon his having a degree. Because he has performed well and demonstrated commitment by taking his exams, he should be allowed to remain in post. However, he will not receive the planned promotion and will have to give up his professional membership.
D) Terry was appointed to his role within your firm with false credentials and he should therefore be asked to leave. However, the circumstances that led him to mislead you were extenuating. Therefore you will give Terry time to find another job before he leaves and will provide a reference outlining his achievements while working for you. You are confident that he has learned his lesson and will not misrepresent his qualifications again.
But what would you advise is the best course of action in this scenario?
A reader's responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictOption B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, 'fraud by false representation' on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made a mistake during a difficult time in his life, we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.
A readers responseA reader submitted their response and chose option A, and explained that this was because the employee had confessed, and the firm is partly culpable for the current state of affairs. This is a very honest answer. In theory, we may think that ‘a lie is a lie’ and anyone who lies deserves to be punished and cannot be trusted. However, the respondent has recognised that, in life, clear cut boundaries can become murky. In this case, Terry has been a consistent and valuable employee. The partner has grown to trust and rely upon him. Additionally, the circumstances which led him to lie cannot fail to illicit sympathy from any reasonable person. Add to that an element of culpability for not properly checking his credentials, and you reach the understandable conclusion that perhaps Terry does not deserve to be punished for his actions.
The CISI verdictFor all of these reasons, option B would certainly not be a very compassionate or particularly ethical response to the dilemma.
Nevertheless, Terry did do something wrong. Even though misrepresentation on a CV is commonplace (a 2015 study by HireRight revealed that 56% of UK job applications in 2014 included incorrect details about the candidate), it is still a serious misdemeanour. In fact, “fraud by false representation” on a job application is punishable by up to ten years in prison under the Fraud Act 2006. So, Terry should face some consequences and it is also important to take some action in order to set the culture of the firm. It needs to be made clear that lying is not acceptable.
Accordingly, the CISI’s preferred option would be either C or D. Given that this particular dilemma involves a young man who made mistake during a difficult time in his life we believe that the most appropriate course of action is to give him a second chance and so choose option C. This demonstrates that he will not profit from his lie, but also takes into account the circumstances he found himself in. It is a fair and balanced response to this particular situation.