Ted has had a demanding, but well paid job in a corporate finance firm but he and his wife Kate has decided to move to St. Louis to start a much more demanding, but poorly paying job as a personal finance advisor. However, the timing of the decision was wrong as the finance sector is going down. The job environment is not favorable. Small businesses are closing by the day; people in corporate world are loosing jobs. Ted and Kate are face with a decision to make: abandon the new job and go back to the old one (work in corporate finance); keep the job and embrace the “success” ethics of the personal finance advisor world; or keep the job and stick to their ethical convictions.
The onus lies with Ted to make a decision, but he could also escalate it. Though Kate is not the decision-maker per se, she has a part to play. Now, Ted has a potentiality to be an exceptional advisor coupled with his moral scope and intellectual versatility. Projections of a vast client-base future with flexible and friendly schedule dominate the discourses of both of them. However, his vast knowledge and admirable ethics sees him sidelined as others in his field with unworthy morals and less knowledge are quite a success. Doing what is right for his clients as against what puts money in the pocket seems to be disadvantageous; only a few of such people get a lucky breakthrough.
The non-rational escalation of commitment may occur where both Ted and Kate decides to keep Ted’s new job. This will not be so much as a result of the quest for success as the quest not to loss sunk cost. Thus, judgmental bias will facilitate this escalation. Although Ted recognizes that an initial poor choice has been made, impression management could lead him to embracing the “success” ethics of his sector which may pose a potential ethical issue. More so, Kate seems to be unfair in supporting the decision of Ted to remain