The $1,140 Box Seat
You are director of supply management at a $480 million regional food processor. Your team of 14 includes Dana, a senior buyer with 11 years' tenure who is the only person who understands the $6.2 million three-year packaging contract now in final negotiation. Two days after a trade show, Dana emails you: a packaging supplier competing for the award gave her two box-seat tickets and dinner, value about $1,140. Your code of conduct requires written pre-approval for any gift or entertainment above $250 and prohibits accepting hospitality from a supplier during an active sourcing event. Dana disclosed voluntarily after a colleague mentioned it; she says she saw no conflict because the evaluation was already complete and her recommendation was written before the event. The award is not signed. One alternative bidder remains live. The supplier's sales director has asked when to expect signature.
1. What do you do in the next 72 hours, about Dana, about the award, and about the supplier, and why? Separate what you know from what you are assuming.
Read the worked answer
Separate three decisions. The employment question, the award question, and the supplier-relationship question have different tests and different timelines. Bundling them is how organizations either over-punish or under-correct.
Known vs. assumed. Known: $1,140 of hospitality during a live sourcing event, no pre-approval, voluntary disclosure after a colleague raised it, evaluation reportedly complete beforehand. Not known: whether the supplier sought anything, whether Dana shared evaluation detail, whether this is a pattern.
Next 72 hours.
- Reply in writing: acknowledge the disclosure, state that you are referring it to ethics and compliance, instruct her to preserve all messages with the supplier, and tell her not to discuss the matter with the supplier.
- Refer to ethics and HR the same day. Do not investigate alone, you are both a witness and a decision-maker.
- Remove her decision rights on this award, not her knowledge. She may answer technical questions; she does not score, recommend, or sign. You and an uninvolved manager re-score against the same criteria and should-cost model, documenting any change.
- Verify the sequence: evaluation file timestamps, emails to the supplier, the expense record.
- Write to the supplier that the company prohibits supplier-provided hospitality during sourcing, that award will be decided on merit, and that no inference should be drawn. Do not disclose discipline.
- Decide the consequence after fact-finding. Likely: written warning, retraining, and transition off this category. Aggravating: the amount is 4.5x the threshold and this was an active event. Mitigating: voluntary disclosure, no evidence of influence.
Why not terminate immediately. Proportionality protects the policy. A consequence that looks excessive teaches the next employee to hide a gift rather than disclose it, which is the outcome you least want.
2. The CEO says: 'Dana is the only person who understands this category and her recommendation predates the gift. Can't we document it and move on?' How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
She is right about the facts and wrong about the risk. The recommendation may well be sound. That is not the question. The question is whether the organization can defend the award if the losing bidder, an auditor, or a customer asks how it was made.
What 'move on' costs.
- Precedent. Whatever you do here becomes the standard. The next case will be larger and less voluntary.
- Negotiation position. The supplier now knows hospitality was accepted during its award. Every future concession conversation carries that.
- Dana's exposure. If the deal underperforms, the gift becomes the explanation whether or not it caused anything. Removing her from the decision protects her.
- Audit and customer exposure. Food and retail customers audit supplier-conduct programs, and commercial-bribery risk is a compliance matter, not an HR matter.
What I would offer instead. A proportionate path with a schedule: five working days to re-score with an uninvolved reviewer, award on the same timeline, Dana retained as technical resource and moved off the category over 6-9 months while a second packaging specialist is developed. That protects the deal and fixes the key-person problem the CEO just identified: a $6.2 million contract that one employee understands is a supply risk independent of any gift.
What I would refuse. Signing the award with Dana's name on the recommendation and no documented review. That is the one option that is indefensible six months from now.
3. Name three systemic controls you would add and the metric that tells you each one is working.
Read the worked answer
Controls that change behavior, not just documents.
Pre-approval embedded in the workflow. The expense system blocks or flags any gift or hospitality entry above $250 until a compliance approval is attached. Metric: percentage of reportable items with pre-approval attached at submission, target 100% monthly, plus the trend in exceptions. A control that lives in a PDF policy is not a control.
Two-way disclosure with a no-blame window. A channel letting employees disclose within five business days with a reduced consequence, plus a supplier-facing contract clause requiring the supplier to log hospitality offered. Metric: median days from event to disclosure, and reconciliation of supplier-logged offers against employee entries. The second metric is the one that catches what employees do not report.
Category continuity. No category above a defined spend threshold may be covered by one person; documented secondary coverage and an annual review. Metric: percentage of spend with a named backup and a current category plan. This converts an ethics problem into a resilience program, which is how you get budget for it.
Annual scenario-based attestation. Not an e-signature: a 20-minute exercise using the real threshold values. Metric: completion plus post-test score.
Audit sampling. Internal audit samples 25 expense reports and 10 supplier relationships a year. Metric: exception rate reported to the audit committee.
Culture signal. Track declined offers and self-disclosures before discovery. Disclosure rising while violations stay flat is exactly what success looks like.