Options Available to Sue, the Choice and Reason - Essay Example

Human Resource Management Name: Institution: Date: 1. Ethical and other issues in the case The glaring ethical issue in the case is the misuse of office by senior personnel to commit crime. The internal auditor, Robert Drew, has brought to the attention of the human resource director, Sue Davenport, an incident of fraud being committed by the senior vice-president, Dan Murphy. This case was reported to Robert by an employee who has severally travelled with Murphy and seen how he fraudulently inflated the expenses during trips in terms of food, accommodation, taxi service and duplicate payment. This is case of senior vice-president of the company dealing dishonestly with the company’s money. Mr. Robert being the internal auditor can document a minimum of $30,000 being phony charged made up by Murphy. Despite Murpy earning more than half a million dollars every year he can still defraud the company in terms of petty cash. Sue suspects that there are other phony dealings that Murphy is engaged in that the company does not know about. Sue and Robert decide to investigate Murphy more and bring to the notice of the CEO the abuses that the vice-president is engaged in. Robert is concerned about the entire issue about this move since he feels that he will be victimized because Murphy is in a senior position. Sue insists that there is no such a thing like immaterial fraud and Murphy has to be reported to the company’s CEO and president plus members of the audit committee have to be notified. As far as Sue is concerned she is just playing her role and implementing the company’s policies. When Robert and Sue meet the CEO and report Murphy abuses in the company, the CEO dismisses them casually claiming that Murphy makes millions for the company and the executives are being petty for reporting such a small issue. A concern that comes in is the issue of organizational hierarchy when it comes to dealing with errand behavior. There are senior officials in organizations that are untouchable when punishing errand behavior. The organizational bureaucracy victimizes a lower ranked employee when he reports a crime committed by senior employees. The CEO is surprised that the two executives can report Murphy for small issues when is making millions for the company. Not punishing crime makes it to escalate unabated. Punishing crimes sets an example to other members of the organization to desist from abuse of office or taking advantage of their position in the company. At first the CEO dismisses the two executives and labels them idle since they have nothing better to do. Sue assertiveness and her attitude towards deviant behavior makes the CEO to think about the issues. The case shows how fraud among senior members of the company is ignored when it has serious repercussions to the rest of the company. Senior managers are given an opportunity to commit crime but not punishing offenders regardless of their ranks. The attitude of senior officers towards their peers is dismissive when a crime is committed that they think is small. The CEO had portrayed Robert and Sue as busybodies who had nothing better to do that accuse Murphy of petty offences. He changed his stand after talking to his wife and thinking it over. Besides he did not want Murphy punished for the offence as an example to the rest of the organization. There is the issue of organization not punishing crime and ignoring it as small but it is always a sign for deep-rooted problems in the culture of the organization. Sue reckons that not punishing Murphy sets a bad example for the rest of the organization. The fact the Murphy had been dishonest with small expanses it can be possible that he would be cheating the company in some other areas. The case study shows the problem that whistleblowers go through in organization. The CEO threatens Robert and Sue with sacking if they insist on punishing Murphy. The CEO clams that Murphy is a valuable team members and it would be embarrassing to punish him. The issue is still dismissed by the members of the committee as insignificant since it involves a senior executive. The committee decided not to interrogate him further. The concept of morality is applied partially in organizations. While it wrong for a simple employee to get involved in any petty cash dishonesty, senior members of the organizations go unpunished for the same crime. 2. Options available to Sue, the choice and reason Sue has several choices in her position as the director of human resource management. Sue can still push for the punishment of Murphy as an example for the rest of the organization. Murphy maybe involved other scams if he is dishonest in the small expenditure. Pushing for his punishment will deter other members of the organization who have the same tendency of defrauding the company when carrying out their mandate. The members of the audit committee have to act tough and avoid being easily bullied but a senior vice-president who is involved in crime. All crimes should be treated in the same way to set a good precedent in the organization. Sue has to stick to her position of punishing Murphy or he should be forced to return the extra cash that he inflated in his spending. Sue Davenport is right that not punishing Murphy will send the wrong signal to the rest of the organization. Glossing over the incident makes the other employee think it is right to engage in fraud as long as it is not known by many people to safeguard the interests of the organization. Murphy promising not to sin anymore in future is not enough reason not to seek redress. He should be made to return all the money that he has defrauded the company in the past engagements. Despite instituting tough internal controls to curb errand behavior it remains hopeless if other members of the organization are treated as if they are above the law. The attitude of Murphy towards the members of the audit committee is intimidating and dismissive. The CEO only feels embarrassed that Murphy has to be punished for such petty issues when he considered him as an important member of the team. Sue is also being intimidated by the CEO who reminds them that he recommended their hiring and would consider their replacement. It is an unfortunate that the CEO does not consider integrity and morality as important values for senior members of the organization. Another option that Sue Davenport has is to quit and look for another job. It is pointless to try and continue working in an organization where rules, regulations and policies are implemented with partiality. Members of the organization have to be treated equally when it comes to their ethical behavior and matters of integrity. The corporate culture of the organization has to be upheld at all times and it should be above every individual member. The fact that Murphy is not punished makes it easy for other members of the organization to engage in crime and expect forgiveness and promise not to repeat in future. If Sue conscious is right and she is for integrity, she has to do the right thing and resign sighting frustrations in implementation of the company policies. The chance that other similar crimes will come up is very high and members will expect forgiveness. Sue Davenport has to make it clear to the CEO that her views about morality and integrity cannot be compromised and go ahead and tender in her resignation letter. This will be a good example of upholding integrity and being honest and true to personal values as well as ensuring the rule of law. Regulations or policies of the organization should apply to all members of the organization. By resigning, Sue would have set a good example and will use that as an honourable thing she has done in her career to safeguard her conscience. 3. Analysis of answers using theoretical approaches to ethical behavior Crime starts small and if it is not punished it blossoms into something big. The character of somebody can determine his ethical behavior. Organization ethics are present to safeguard the interests of the organization. The welfare of the organization is important. The crime triangle indicates how crime happens. The crime triangle consists of desire, target and opportunity. The desire is the criminal’s intent, drive and motivation. When someone has the desire to commit a crime he will look for a target an opportunity (Faunce, 2004). Murphy had the desire to commit the crime before committing it. Another element on the crime triangle is the target. A person will look for a target if has the desire to commit crime. Murphy targeted the petty cash in his expenditure when on business mission. Another element is opportunity. A person looks for any opportunity to commit the crime. The opportunity to go for business trips on behalf of the organization was the chance for Murphy to commit crime. Once a crime is not punished and escalates into something big. The CEO should not disregard the commitment by Sue to punish crime. Crime can be influenced by the opportunity. Murphy would not engage in crime if there is no opportunity to commit crime. The company’s policies and ethics seem to be less stringent has giving murphy an opportunity to engage in crime. If members of the organization were forced to account for their petty cash expenditure when on business, there will be less opportunity to commit crime. The policies of the company should not give a chance for members to commit crime (Pojman & Fieser, 2009). A person with the desire to commit crime is activated when an opportunity arises and there a premeditated target. Murphy target was the small expenditure when on business. The opportunity was the occasion of being sent on business trips. Stringent rules about expenditure can deter members of the organization from engaging in crime. Morality and integrity has to be observed in all actions of the company. Acting partially makes other members to feel victimized even if they are rightly punished for wrong-doing. The corporate culture of the company can be safeguarded if the same rules and regulations are applied to all members of the organization regardless of the rank. Senior managers should not be allowed to go unpunished if they are found to have committed a crime. Ethical values can be cultivated by emphasizing organizational values that promote integrity, morality and good behavior. Justice and fairness ensure equal treatment to all members of organization regardless of their rank. Morality has to be considered in all decision-making to cultivate good behavior in all employees (Ellis, 2007). Despite the desire to commit crime, the presence of a target and opportunity, members can be deterred from committing crime for fearing punishment. Both utilitarianism and egoism determines whether an action is ethically allowed basing on the consequences of the action. Egoism gives precedence to the reason. Egoism recommends a self-serving action. An individual acts in his own best interest. The CEO is not for the idea of punishing Murphy because it benefits him. He does not want to be embarrassed. The self-interest of the CEO gains precedence over the welfare of the organization and its corporate culture. Egoism gives precedence to self-interest. Utilitarianism gives precedence to everybody welfare including the individual, which is considered in the overall good. If self-interest is against the overall good then self-interest is ignored for the overall good (Page, 2008). Consequently, utilitarianism suggests actions that will lead to the overall good of many people. In the case study, the self-interest has taken precedence over the overall good. Punishing Murphy is for the good of the entire organization. Not punishing him will only benefit himself and the CEO who does not want to suffer embarrassment. The common good of the organization is thrashed for the benefit of two individuals (Pojman & Fieser, 2009). Sue will be demoralized in upholding the ethical policies of the company and punishing other errand behavior. The members of the audit commit feel intimidated by Murphy attitude hence affecting their morale. The self-interest of two people affects the implementation of the ethical principles in the organization. Utilitarian theory gives priority to everybody welfare. The deontological theory gives importance to issues of rights, fairness and commitment, and suggest doing the right thing regardless of the consequences (Miller, 2009). The end does not justify the means under this theory. Sue has to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. If Sue thinks only about her job and ignores the application of morality principles to the entire organization, she is applying egoism theory. Safeguarding her job against ethical action is not in the interest of the entire organization. The CEO has to encourage behavior that safeguards the welfare of the entire organization instead of his own self-interests. References Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3-29. Faunce, T.A. (2004). Developing and Teaching the Virtue-Ethics Foundations of Healthcare Whistle Blowing, Monash Bioethics Review; 23(4): 41-55 Miller, C. (2009). The Conditions of Moral Realism. The Journal of Philosophical Research, 34, 123-155 Page, J.S. (2008). Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Pojman, L.P. & Fieser, J. (2009). Virtue Theory. In Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (pp. 146-169). (6th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Read More