Cynthia Cooper and WorldCom - Essay Example

Cynthia Cooper and WorldCom Cynthia Cooper and WorldCom The situation that Cynthia Cooper, the Vice President of Internal Audit in WorldCom, finds herself in gives many employees a dilemma. In this regard, employees find themselves in such situations, especially those that concern fraud, like the case of Cynthia Cooper whose further investigation unearthed evidence to prove the fraud. On one hand, there is the option of taking the right action and whistle blowing these findings while risking retaliation from fellow employees. On the other hand, Cynthia has a choice of taking no action and risking her career while protecting the career of fellow workmates. This expose elucidates on the appropriate decision that Cynthia should take to deal with this issue. From the onset, it is crucial to point out that the right decision for Cynthia would be reporting these fraudulent acts to her superiors without making the information public. In order to make her case strong, Cynthia should use the findings from the additional investigations she carried out in order to ensure that the exposure has enough merit. However, it is crucial for her to seek another job before taking any action since the decision taken might leave her jobless. Any decision that one might take in such a situation has various implications. One such implication would be on the families affected by the whistle blowing in case of termination of careers and effectively the source of livelihood. Cynthia Hooper is no exceptional and has to consider her career and family and the careers of other employees, something I would do in her shoes. According to Sissela Bok, “Would-be whistleblowers confront the conflict inherent in all dissent: between conforming and sticking their necks out. The more repressive the authority they challenge, the greater the personal risk they take in speaking out” (as cited in Donaldson & Werhane, 2007). In this regard, there is a big risk of one’s livelihood and that of the family and the career of the whistleblower in case the superiors view such acts as dissent. Donaldson and Werhane (2007) further support this idea by stating that, “When audiences are not free to receive or to act on the information-when censorship or fear of retribution stifles response-then the message rebounds to injure the whistleblower.” The most important reason for reporting the extra findings indicate that Cynthia is showing responsibility by indicating the extra steps taken towards unearthing the truth. When making this decision however, it is crucial for her to remember that she may face accusations related to dissent and a breach of loyalty. Donaldson and Werhane (2007) further support this by arguing that the audience who receive this information may “impose certain requirements of accuracy and judgment in dissent; of exploring alternative ways to cope with improprieties that minimize the breach of loyalty; and of fairness in accusation. “ In effect, this argument may make an individual in Cynthia’s situation conform and fail to blow the whistle since she had engaged in her personal auditing, a position I would also consider if I were in her shoes. Therefore, the act of conducting a personal audit is an indication that she is on the journey of taking responsibility of her findings on fraudulent activities at WorldCom. Nevertheless, it is crucial to ensure that the results were 100 percent correct by carrying out an audit of the results. A breach of loyalty puts Cynthia’s livelihood and career at a risk. In addition, the careers and livelihoods of other employees are also at risk, which is also a violation of loyalty to some extent. However, reporting the additional findings without going public minimizes the breach of loyalty. Though contradictory to the decision that I would take if I were Cynthia should take, it is important to consider the element of public interest before disclosing this information. As a public limited company, WorldCom’s stakeholders deserve to know of any fraudulent activities. Nevertheless, Cynthia needs to consider what would be the action to take if she was amongst the shareholders at WorldCom. Aristotle supports this idea by pointing out that, “What is best in us-our virtues-are in turn defined by that larger community, and there is therefore no ultimate split of antagonism between individual self-interest and the greater public good” (cited in Donaldson & Werhane, 2007). However, this Aristotelian approach ultimately disagrees with my initial decision and would instead argue for Cynthia Cooper to be a whistleblower and to look our for the larger community instead of her own self-interests. Although the Aristotelian approach would advice Cynthia to be a whistleblower, the consequences and retaliation from different sources may hinder this decision. While the act of forwarding the additional findings is an indication of honesty and extolling virtues in the auditor that is Cynthia, this might be an antagonistic move according to the proposal by Aristotle regardless of the fact that Aristotle spoke in a time that corporations were inexistent. Nevertheless, Donaldson and Werhane (2007) noted that this approach by Aristotle “begins with the idea that it is individual virtue and integrity that counts: good corporate and social policy will follow; good corporate and social policies are both the preconditions and the result of careful cultivation and encouragement.” This idea of business ethics by Aristotle does not apply in Cynthia’s case since a number of people with integrity within the corporation had already come forward enquiring WorldCom’s questionable behavior and were effectively threatened or fired without any improvement or stoppage of the fraudulent business practices. On the other hand, Kant believed that the highest good was the good will, and that it is the intention behind an action rather than its consequences that made that particular action good (Donaldson & Werhane, 2007). In this regard, Cynthia Cooper’s intent is to bring to light the fraudulent behavior at WorldCom. In effect, Kant would agree that reporting the additional findings would be in good will. On the other hand, whistle blowing will not be necessary because Cynthia Cooper’s intent is to bring light this fraudulent behavior without causing too much disruption in both her and her co-workers lives. Therefore, All three of Kant’s formulations are applicable to Cynthia Cooper’s decision in report her findings and the additional findings to her superiors. According to the first formulation by Kant, an individual should “act only on maxims which you can will to be universal law” (cited in Donaldson & Werhane, 2002). In this regard, every individual in the universe would possibly act based on the principle of reporting this questionable fraudulent behavior to superiors within their company since it should be the most ethical thing. On the other hand, the second formulation by Kant says that every individual should “always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and never as a means merely” (cited in Donaldson & Werhane, 2002). In the case of Cynthia Cooper, she is not using humanity as a means to achieve anything. In effect, Cynthia Cooper’s concern might be her co-workers reputation, retirement accounts and the implications that whistle blowing could have on their future. Similarly, Cynthia Cooper is not using WorldCom to her benefit by reporting her findings. Finally, the third formulation by Kant states that, “So act as if you were a member of an ideal kingdom of ends in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time” (cited in Donaldson & Werhane, 2007). In this case, Cynthia Cooper wants the company to stop the fraudulent behavior. Therefore, she is acting in a way that she would want somebody else to act if they were the one came across similar findings. It is my strong opinion that, if Cynthia owned the company, she would therefore want someone to report possible fraudulent financial findings. On the other hand, utilitarianism is an ethical theory by Mill that strives to bring the most amount of pleasure to most people. However, this theory does not correspond with my decision for Cynthia Cooper in reporting her additional findings without whistleblowing. In this regard, without whistle blowing, Cynthia Cooper would only make her co-workers happy since the findings are not public. On the other hand, whistle blowing effectively means that Cynthia Cooper’s co-workers risk losing their careers and source of livelihood once WorldCom carries out its investigations. On the other hand, millions of WorldCom’s shareholders would suffer from my decision of not blowing the whistle on these fraudulent activities. In this regard, they will be in the dark and ultimately this action may cost them in future once the truth surfaces years after Cynthia Cooper’s initial findings. I find it impossible to apply John Stuart Mill’s ethical belief that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (cited in Donaldson & Werhane, 2007). In this regard, any decision taken by Cynthia Cooper, whether going ahead and whistle blowing or not, will result in profound unhappiness by millions of people. On the other hand, I do think that making the decision to report her additional findings will satisfy Cynthia Cooper’s higher pleasure capacities of intellect, noble feelings, imagination, and moral sentiments. Although reporting her findings will not bring happiness to a number of people, Cynthia Cooper’s choice will display emotional intelligence, heroism, humility, moral imagination, and moral sentiments of justice, honesty and fairness. In conclusion and based on the foregoing, different theorists inform the type of decision I would take if I were in Cynthia Cooper’s shoes. Although any decision I would take would have adverse effects either to me, my co-workers, and shareholders in WorldCom, the best decision to take would be to report these findings to my superiors and await further action while preparing for any adverse effect this action might have on me as an individual. It is crucial to point out that my decision is a result of following Aristotle’s approach that individual virtue and honesty counts in the corporate world. In addition, Kant also informs my decision since I would be acting according to maxims on what I would like to be a universal law of reporting such fraudulent activities. These two approaches will play the most fundamental role in informing my decision. Reference Donaldson, T., & Werhane, P. (2007). Ethical Issues in Business: A philosophical approach (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice Hall. Read More