When morality becomes a (transparent and GDPR-friendly) multiple-choice question.
I recently had the joyless experience of going through a mandatory ethics training program. Yes, the kind with cartoonishly simplistic dilemmas, painfully forced scenarios, and the kind of moral reasoning that could’ve been scripted by a committee of lobotomized consultants. One of the “educational” highlights came from a US-AID sponsored video (in my native) that feels like a parody of itself.
Corporate ethics ≠ ethics
Let’s begin with a basic observation: ethics is about confronting complex dilemmas where values collide. Corporate ethics training is about compliance. It’s a paper shield: if something unethical happens, they can say, “Well, we trained them!” and walk away clean.
These trainings reduce human complexity into multiple-choice questions. In one of mine, the “dilemma” was this: your colleague was late returning the company car because they had to transport their sick child. You need that same car for your next assignment. Do you:
- A) Report them for being late
- B) Stay silent and miss your deadline
Those were the only options. No room for common sense. No suggestion of asking management why there’s only one vehicle for critical work. No space to talk about compassion, childcare infrastructure, or workload planning. Just pick between being a rat or a martyr – and remember to smile while you click “Next.”
Professionalism or kindergarten?
Instead of encouraging people to think, these modules force them to conform. Critical thinking is replaced with catchphrases like “owning it” and “acknowledging reality” – as if being a functioning adult requires learning to say “Oops, I forgot.” It’s workplace kindergarten wrapped in HR lingo.
Worse, the trainings often present false dichotomies. You can either be loyal to the rules or be the “bad guy.”
Speaking up against unethical but compliant behaviour is often the fastest way to end your career.
But don’t expect nuance from canned video clips written like rejected sitcom drafts.
Who’s this really for?
It’s not for the people who actually need ethical guidance. Corrupt managers, predatory procurement officers, and entitled bureaucrats won’t be deterred by an online quiz. These modules exist for the same reason companies hang up “diversity” posters – to say they’re doing something, while changing nothing.
And let’s be real: the people who do care about ethical behaviour don’t need a 45-minute clickfest to remind them. They’re too busy doing their jobs properly — often in spite of the system, not thanks to it.
Bonus round: ethics, public-sector style
If you work in the public sector (like I currently do), ethics training takes on a uniquely Kafkaesque tone. You’re told to uphold the law, but also to be efficient, transparent, loyal, and obedient – even when those things contradict each other. You’re taught that whistleblowing is noble, but that loyalty to your team is key. So which is it?
The answer: follow procedure. Don’t think too hard. Definitely don’t question the logic behind why someone in upper management can violate basic decency but you get flagged for printing too many pages.
What real ethics training should be
Real ethics training would involve uncomfortable discussions, historical context, and real-world case studies – not sanitized roleplays. It would ask people to reflect on personal responsibility in systems designed to suppress it. It would explore how structural incentives shape behaviour far more than slogans like “Make it happen!”
But that’s messy. It makes people think. So instead, we get the safe, neutered, corporate-friendly version that leaves everyone equally uninspired – but legally covered.
Ethics by checkbox
From start to end, the entire thing feels like an exercise in plausible deniability. It’s not about improving “workplace culture” (I hate that term). It’s about compliance theatre. Everyone pretends to care while clicking “Next.”
And nothing changes.
Ever sat through one of these ethics modules and come out dumber?
Last updated:
Originally published:
