INSEAD

Europe

North America

South America

China

India

Africa

Middle East

Asia

Russia

Oceania

prison

informant

truth-kids

lie-kids

gender-diverse

gender-female

gender-male

old woman, unclear ethnicity, sitting in a chair crocheting

general counsel, female, white, late 40s, smiling

Stop worrying so much. I've been doing business trips for 20 years and nothing like this has ever happened. Neither to me, nor to anyone I know at the company

Why would anything like this ever happen to me? I'm nothing like this guy. I'm not the CEO.

I've heard about him. But, so what? He was corrupt and bribed someone. That's what he plead guilty to, after all. So, of course he was fired. I'd never do anything like that

You know I take my job quite seriously. But why would I EVER do anything that would put my family at risk like that?

Whatever, sure. Love you too. I have to go now or I might miss my flight.

This case consists of three critical decisions. Each decision presents the reader with highly unexpected circumstances, little time to decide, and extreme pressure.

The decisions are based on real stories in which the business and the personal world collided. One such story is that of Frédéric Pierucci, a former Alstom executive who spent two years in a high security prison in the United States. Despite serious accusations of corruption, he maintains his innocence. Rather than attempting to find the truth of who is right and who is wrong, the case aims to inspect high stakes situations such as Mr. Pierucci’s arrest from different perspectives.

What would you do? 

Personal decision making in the heat of the moment

After answering a few basic questions to personalise the case, learners are almost immediately presented with an unexpected situation: they are arrested on a business trip. They are faced with a tough choice: cooperate with the local authorities or remain loyal to their company. Chapter 1 deals with how learners handle this high pressure scenario.

Snitches get stitches

Factoring in family and loved ones into the decision

Learning Objective: Factoring in family and loved ones into the decision

Plot summary: You decided to go to prison. The high pressure situation is over. You are now faced with the reality of dealing with the consequences of your decision and how it impacts your family, as well as those closest to you. Can you expose what you are doing now to someone you really care about? And if not, how do you deal with that dilemma? Specifically, your spouse is telling you that your oldest kid is asking about you and seems to have doubts that the story he is told is true: i.e. that you are caught in a prolonged business trip. 

Dilemma: do you have two different sets of values as a professional, and as a person?

Task: Make a decision: do you tell your kid that you are in prison because you are accused of corruption?

Family

Executive perspective: differentiating personal and professional values

For the final chapter, learners change perspective. They are no longer the victim, but are put in a position of power that enables them to help the victim: the board of the company that employs the arrested executive. However, while it seemed obvious from the victim’s perspective that “helping” is the correct choice, things may not be as obvious from the position of the board.

The Board

There are no right and no wrong answers to questions of personal values. They are intrinsically subjective. Nonetheless, through the process of reflecting on our values, we may conclude that decisions we previously thought were "correct", as dictated by our own ethical framework, bring unintended consequences. As a result we may decide to change our mind. Following the discussion with your classmates, and yourself, did you change your mind?

Part of the debrief should be to ask students whether they changed their mind.

Do you want to go to jail? Personal and professional decision making in context of economic warfare

About the authors

Content

FAQ