This case highlights a critical ethical dilemma concerning workplace harassment and its impact on individual well-being and organizational success. The Chief Architect's behavior, driven by insecurity and a threatened ego, directly contradicts professional ethics and creates a hostile work environment.

Similar to the #MeToo movement, which exposed widespread workplace harassment, this case underscores the urgent need for ethical leadership.

Stakeholder Identification

Stakeholders in the case

(a) Ethical Issues Involved

1. Workplace Harassment: The Chief Architect's actions constitute workplace harassment, creating a hostile and discriminatory environment for Seema. This violates her right to a safe and respectful workplace.

2. Abuse of Power and Hierarchy: The Chief Architect exploits his senior position and authority to intimidate and belittle Seema, demonstrating a lack of professionalism and integrity.

3. Compromise of Project Success: The harassment jeopardizes the project's success by undermining Seema's confidence and potentially leading to her resignation, thus depriving the project of her valuable contributions.

4. Damage to Organizational Morale and Reputation: The Chief Architect's behavior erodes trust and respect within the organization, impacting overall morale and potentially damaging the CPWD's reputation.

5. Violation of Justice and Fairness: Seema's talent and merit are disregarded due to the Chief Architect's personal insecurities, violating the principles of fairness and equal opportunity.

6. Undermining of Meritocracy: The Chief Architect's behavior undermines meritocracy by prioritizing seniority and personal ego over competence and valuable contributions.

(b) Options Available to the ADG

1. Counsel and Sensitize the Chief Architect Privately:

   • Recognize his contributions while also advising him to adopt a collegial and inclusive attitude.

   • Emphasizing that mentoring a talented junior will only enhance his own legacy.

2. Mediation and Team Building Initiatives: Organize a conflict-resolution session to clear misunderstandings and establish ground rules for constructive collaboration.

3. Reassign Roles While Retaining Project Focus: Rebalance responsibilities to allow both to contribute — e.g., let the Chief Architect focus on structural design, while Seema handles innovation and time-saving components.

4. Institutional Mechanisms for Grievance Redressal:

   • Encourage Seema to formally raise her concerns if she chooses to, and assure her of confidentiality.

   • Activate the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) or an internal HR mechanism for grievance redressal.

5. Encourage Recognition of Team Achievements, Not Individuals Alone: Change the project culture to reward collective effort over individual glory.

(c) Response to Seema’s Predicament and Preventive Measures:

1. Immediate Response to Seema:

   • Private Meeting and Empathetic Listening:

     • Invite Seema for a one-on-one conversation.
     • Assure her of her value to the organization and your support in resolving the issue.

   • Acknowledgment and Appreciation: Publicly recognize her ideas during project review meetings to restore her confidence.

   • Assure Institutional Support and Action: Reassure her that any harassment will be addressed appropriately, and that her well-being matters as much as the project.

2. Long-Term Preventive Measures:

   • Gender Sensitization and Ethics Training: Organize regular workshops on workplace ethics, emotional intelligence, and respectful conduct.

   • Robust Grievance Redressal Mechanism: Strengthen or establish internal mechanisms for handling professional misconduct, with anonymous feedback options.

   • Mentorship Program: Pair senior officers with juniors in a structured mentorship framework to balance experience with innovation.

   • Comprehensive Feedback System: Implement performance reviews that include feedback from subordinates, peers, and supervisors.

   • Celebrate Inclusive Leadership: Highlight case studies or awards that reward team-based success and ethical leadership within the department.

The challenge is to balance human dignity with institutional goals. As ADG, my leadership must reflect empathy, fairness, and integrity, fostering an environment where both the project and the people behind it can thrive together.