"An ethical dilemma is a situation or problem where a leader or manager has to make a difficult choice; sometimes choosing between what is considered a moral or immoral act. The choices are both unsatisfactory" (Excelsior notes). In this analysis, the central problem is an ethical issue for Harry Markham. His loyalty to his firm, the oversight board of trustees, and the pensioners are at odds with his personal and professional standards. "All employees have the right and responsibility to ensure that this business is conducted with high ethical and legal principles "(Excelsior notes). So, by ignoring the numbers being false, it would be an ethical business infraction because he is not ensuring that the business is being ethical or legal. If he does nothing and ignores it, then he is knowingly giving bad investment advice.\

Some of the key issues that Mr. Markham faces in this case are:

Ethical issues between stated values and behaviors among the stakeholders: The firm (investment consulting associates and Mr. Markham)- Boards of trustees for state pension funds- State employees (pensioners).

Harry's personal ethics and professional code of ethics.

There is a discrepancy in how liabilities to the plan are calculated and the impact for the long term (viability of their plan).

All stakeholders want to maintain the status quo or equilibrium.

The first alternative that Mr. Markham can select is "Do not explain the liability issue (technical solution." This alternative has some PROS:

The board of trustees will be kept unaware of the dangers and will be happy.

He and his firms will keep their jobs.

The state pension plan will still have political support.

However, this option also has some CONS:

His personal and professional ethical views are violated.

He could lose his license.

Eventually, the liabilities will catch up with the plan, and either the employees will lose benefits or taxpayers will have to pay more.

He cannot give accurate advice to the board of trustees. They will not understand why he wants to make the financial moves he needs to make.

The second alternative that Mr. Markham has is "Explain the liability issue (Adaptive solution)." The PROS for his alternative are:

Shows loyalty to his personal and professional ethics.

Allows Harry to better explain the accurate financial picture to the board of trustees and provide sound financial advising.

Shows loyalty to the people in the state retirement plan.

Furthermore, the CONS are:

He could be viewed as disloyal to his firm.

He and his firm could be fired.

The state pension plans may lose taxpayer support because the taxpayers will have to make up the differences in liability.

The state pension plan could lose political support.

I think these alternatives are essential for Mr. Markham to consider because the CFA Code of Ethics implicates that before doing a piece of investment advice, they must first look for the client's circumstances. While doing so, those suggested alternatives will be helpful to the clients and be the cornerstone of everybody's career in the future. The fact is already out there it is clearly shown that they have irregularity practice had been done in the company. Considering that Mr. Markham must always do the right and proper way to protect himself also because we might know that in the end, these liability issues may become bigger, and it will fire back all the problems directly to him. It is better late to act than never at all; we might implicate that it is quite too late, and there are powerful personalities behind this case, but it is not enough reason why Markham should fall back and be silent upon this problem.

I personally believe that Mr. Markham should use the "Adaptive solution." I think he should make a disequilibrium (Make all stakeholders aware of the severity of the situation- Showing them the discrepancies between investment models (defined benefits vs. defined contributions), what others are doing, and their outcomes, liabilities, and success). Also, he should make urgency (Seek consensus on advising the group moving forward, what information they need to hear (hand the problem back to the people responsible for solving it and clarify their values and align their behaviors accordingly).

"More typically, the unethical business practice involves the tacit, if not explicit, the cooperation of others and reflects the values, attitudes, beliefs, language, and behavioral patterns

that define an organization's operating culture. Ethics, then, is as much an organizational as a personal issue" (Payne, 2014). If I had to put myself in Mr. Markham's shoes, I would choose to speak. With the given the scenario above, the right way, in my opinion, is to tell the people the truth that it has been covered by those corrupt individuals who were benefiting their effort getting those investments by using dirty tricks. I will directly propose to solve the case by simply getting the valuable information and taking precautionary action because we expect that there is some influential person behind in this situation, so doing the necessary steps will be advisable. In the end, we are all just human, so knowing that there is a group of individuals or any person who needs help, it is our responsibility to answer that call because it is General Rule for us to make all Good Deeds to each and another. After all, in that way, we are showing the people the hope and justice that can still be achieved by one who truly desires to help. As the protagonist, in this case, I will let the truth prevail following any existing laws imposed by the concerned government. I also think that I would ask for help and advice to see how to act, and I would always have a plan B for any occasion. I believe that these situations are the ones that crucially demonstrate the ethics that the person has and the importance that one places on his or her principles.

change words so does not appear copy