Evergreen Case

Tom Heron

Richard Alpert, a senior partner at Evergreen investments, is faced with the decision of whom he should promote to the position of managing vice president.  The two candidates for the position are Charlie Pace and Daniel Faraday.  Alpert will be meeting with the CEO the next day to make his recommendation.  Alpert originally thought that his decision would be rather simple.  Pace had just graduated the top of his class two years earlier, has many connections through business school, and excelled at identifying and wooing clients.  Pace was clearly the best preforming and most personable candidate for the position, and as such Alpert was going to choose him for the promotion.  However, Alpert overhears Pace admitting that he uses Adderall to another employee.  Pace told the other employee that he obtained a prescription for the Adderall by faking symptoms to his doctor, and even encourages the other employee to do the same thing.  After overhearing this Alpert has to make an ethical decision of whether or not Pace still deserves the promotion despite using Adderall to gain a competitive advantage.

        There are two options that Alpert must choose between to solve this ethical issue.  Option A is to give the promotion to Faraday, this would have the advantage of discouraging illicit drug use in the office, and set a precedent that the use of performance enhancing drugs will not be tolerated. However it prevents the best possible candidate from being chosen and may lead to Pace quitting, which leads to the possibility of option B.  Option B is to give the promotion to Pace because he is the highest preforming member of the staff, he is the best decision to benefit the companies bottom line, and his performance will set a precedent for future promotions.  However this option also has the disadvantage of possibly opening up other employees to the use of performance enhancing drugs.

        Option A is the solution I would recommend to Alpert.  Pace’s Adderall use was unfair to his colleagues in competition for this job.  Faraday had many of the same accomplishments as Pace, but achieved these results due to his work ethic.  When Faraday was working long extra hours and distinguishing himself through the consistency of his work, Pace was taking advantage of his drugs and using them to benefit his work.  This needs to be taken into account because if Pace’s supply of drugs runs out and he fails to procure more than his performance may fall.  Faraday’s consistent quality of work even with all of the pressure he has in his personal life proves that he will be an extremely reliable candidate for the promotion.   On the other hand, Pace’s future performance depends on him continuing to deceive doctors into giving him more medication, making his reliability very questionable.  Alpert also has a duty to the company to protect them from risk while trying to grow their profits.  Promoting a know Adderall user into a management position while knowing that Pace does not medically need the medicine exposes the company to a lot of risk.  If Pace were to get caught deceiving doctors to gain access to a controlled substance, than it would hurt the company.  Alpert would be forced to fire Pace, and it may have negative effects on their reputation.  Customers who have a relationship with Pace could question the ethics of the company and go to the competition.  It could also effect the moral of the office if Pace were to get promoted.  If Pace’s colleagues found out that he was promoted while management knew he was taking performance enhancing medicine they could get upset and feel he didn’t disserve it.  If this happened, than people could start to quit or question the authority of managers, creating a very hostile work environment.  This would drain the productivity of the workers having the exact opposite effect of what hiring a new manager is supposed to do.  Therefore it is to much of a risk to recommend Pace for the promotion, Faraday would be a much safer option.  This will set a precedent that performance enhancing drug use is not acceptable in the office and there will be a zero tolerance policy.