As the Seven West board grapples with the fallout from the relationship between chief executive Tim Worner and former employee Amber Harrison, there are lessons for organisations wanting to do the right thing.

Executives often have codes of conduct to ensure those with positional power or referent power don't damage the organisation when they leave or bring the organisation into disrepute.

CEOs, boards and their chairs are expected to act in the best interests of the business.

But what do you do when your CEO may have demonstrated very poor judgment, the market ponders his departure and the share price crashes?

How does the board balance its responsibility for book value and shareholder return with its obligation to brand value and culture?

Truly vile

If the board knew about Mr Worner's indiscretions and turned a blind eye as long as he performed in the job, then jumped to destroy this woman's character and mental health when things blew up, it is truly vile.

It is also possible that in investigating any financial impropriety of the CEO to gather as many facts as possible with which to make any big decisions about his future, they had no choice but to investigate Ms Harrison's use of company credit cards, and also if some of that expenditure occurred when they were together.

But imagine as a junior employee, finding yourself at the mercy of one of the Big Four accounting firms prying into every nook and cranny of your professional and personal finances.

If this was deliberately designed to intimidate and dissuade her from any action, this would have been akin to the sort of intimidation used by British American Tobacco in the bullying of the family of the late Rolah McCabe, who had sued them as a smoker for her cancer and died before any payout could be made.

Witch-hunts and false negatives

I applaud the courage and ethics of recently resigned Seven West director Sheila McGregor, who reportedly insisted that the scope of the independent investigation by Allens Linklater include an examination of any potential misconduct by the CEO.

As an investigator in countless grievances and reviews, I am well aware of the importance of the scope.

Too narrow and you potentially get a "false negative". Too broad and the investigation starts to look like a witch-hunt where the aim is not to seek the "truth" but the desire to dig up something, anything.

It's also true that the big corporation isn't always wrong and the "little person" isn't always reasonable, stable or lacking in opportunism.

Determining the appropriate response to performance issues is far easier than doing so with conduct.

If we are to judge Ms Harrison for seeking compensation in the aftermath of a consensual relationship and its associated consequences (including the risk she is rendered virtually unemployable henceforth), then we should judge the CEO and the board, as the custodians of culture in equal measure.

Alleged drug taking, time spent on a huge salary "sexting" a junior member of staff and allegedly admitting he could barely concentrate at work are issues for his board.

Disturbing elements

We get the behaviour we're prepared to tolerate.

With all the complexity of such a story, to me the most disturbing elements are the following two questions.

1) How many other junior women (and men) will become casualties in the power and ego wars of the entertainment industry, seduced by the casting couch or the promise of promotions while being ever vulnerable to the real threat of victimisation?

2) How many good people will have to resign their senior positions on principle, leaving behind those potentially most ill-equipped to make the most ethical decisions?

–Leanne Faraday-Brash is an organisational psychologist and principal of Brash Consulting. She is the author of Vulture Cultures: How to stop them ravaging your performance, people, profit and public image.