Oh boy oh boy ETHICS!
My favourite topic. Engaged readers (or those that clicked that link) will recall my last ethics-based answer, and the ensuing down-votes that occurred.
First up, this is a silly question.
How can you say is it silly? Everyone is precious and nothing is silly
Um, yes they are, we're all lovely in our own way. I'm not attacking the OP here - the question really is silly. Or rather, misplaced.
Because it is about company regulations - it is clearly off topic. None of us here know what the regulations at the company are like, so none of us know if the OP is a minute away from being walked out the door. So the last question Will it have any impact on my day job? is misplaced - it doesn't belong on this site.
There are two parts, smarty
Yup, and the second part is ethics. OMG ethics i love talking about ethics! Let's look at @Jane's answer - it is an expression of what he/she thinks is ethical. Hume (1711-76) ~ I'm giving dates now, I think that down-voters wanted dates to cross reference ~ &Ayer (1910-89) both roughly argue that expressions aren't ethical.1
That is not what the downvoters were - oh, you don't care, do you?
Nope. So, OP can now decide if OP wants @Jane's approval or not. If the OP does, then it is clear what OP should do - but it is not clear from an ethical standpoint.
Huh. So what, if ethics is just about liking people, then...
The best bet is actually Machiavelli (1469-1527).
Ummm, that sounds like bad advice
Hear me out! He is misinterpreted - what Il Principe argues is that the ruling elite have their own morality, that supersedes "typical" morality. This is because the ruling elite have a different motivation - attaining and holding onto power.
"Il Pricipe", seriously? Also, OP should absolutely not have a dinner and murder everyone.
Right, right. Geeze, yes, OP, do not murder anyone. Also, don't go to any dinners by anyone called "Oliverotto".
Sure. So is there another philoso-
I'm not done though! Just - just hear me out. By that logic, it is readily apparent that what OP is doing is ok. It just means OP has to look at it from another point of view.
Um, that at least OP won't have to worry about boring conversation if OP murders everyone at the party?
No! All Machivelli really notes is that if you change the viewpoint of what you're after - let's say you are after money/spousal happiness/your pick - then taking steps to attain that is the only "right" thing to do.
So... say you're worried about being bored at a dinner party you're hosting in a week's time
Well, you should just take the view point of not being bored as your new moral compass! Everyone wins!2
Yes yes, I see. Also, that sounds rather first half 20th Century wrong
Hey, ethics is tricky!
So, any other advice?
The inimitable @Vietnhi has it right - stop telling everyone what you're doing and keep on keeping on. As an addition -
Right, because you didn't actually add anything with all that philosophy stuff
-aHEM. As an addition, staying as a non-director and providing information and advice is not really doing "outside work". After all, a lot of us are providing advice here on this forum, and nobody is asking if answering questions here is ethical or not.
"Not ethical" in the sense of not being about ethics. As an example, if I said "I like cats", that is a statement of fact, not ethics. So is saying "I like people who don't trade industry secrets". Saying "you ought to not trade industry secrets" just restates this fact, but with an implicit "because then I won't like you. Or rather "You ought to not trade industry secrets because then I won't like you, as I don't like people who do that."
All joking aside, the important thing to note is that not everybody wins in a closed system - like a dinner party.