Acct3102 Case Study Example
EXAMPLE: HIGH DISTINCTION PAPER
ETHICAL ISSUES
QUESTION 1
Richards adopts a teleological-parochialism position 1 to justify that his actions are ethical, 2 even though they are illegal (Baugher & Weisbord, 2009). 3 Richards argues that his actions are ethical as they resulted in desirable consequences, in the form of better sales/performance figures, which met analyst forecasts and positively affected shareholder value (Radtke, 2004; Fernando, Dharmage, & Almeida, 2008). 4 He acted in the interests of his ‘in-group’ (other executives/managers), maximising their performance-based compensation, 5 at the expense of others (Barnett, Bass, & Brown, 1994). 6 Richards also claims that his actions were not serious, as recognising revenues earlier was simply a timing issue, 7 and was common practice in the software industry. 8 Furthermore, his actions are not as serious as other well-publicised corporate scandals. 9 Richards did not adopt a deontological position, as he was not concerned about following rules (Baugher & Weisbord, 2009). 10
A person who adopts a teleological position examines the expected consequences of actions to determine whether the actions are ethical, irrespective of the process by which the result is achieved (Baugher & Weisbord, 2009). Within this teleological position is ethical parochialism, where behaviour is deemed ethical if it protects the interests of the individuals ‘in-group’ (Henderson, Peirson, & Herbohn, 2011). 2 Richards’ actions included facilitating the extension of the fiscal quarter, allowing subordinates to obtain contracts after the quarter end, and failing to alert the finance and accounting departments about contracts that may have been backdated, thus misreporting affected revenues and earnings, amounting to misconduct. It may be argued that his positive act of facilitating the extension of the fiscal quarter, is more serious than his inaction, in failing to alert the finance and accounting departments about contracts
ETHICAL ISSUES
QUESTION 1
Richards adopts a teleological-parochialism position 1 to justify that his actions are ethical, 2 even though they are illegal (Baugher & Weisbord, 2009). 3 Richards argues that his actions are ethical as they resulted in desirable consequences, in the form of better sales/performance figures, which met analyst forecasts and positively affected shareholder value (Radtke, 2004; Fernando, Dharmage, & Almeida, 2008). 4 He acted in the interests of his ‘in-group’ (other executives/managers), maximising their performance-based compensation, 5 at the expense of others (Barnett, Bass, & Brown, 1994). 6 Richards also claims that his actions were not serious, as recognising revenues earlier was simply a timing issue, 7 and was common practice in the software industry. 8 Furthermore, his actions are not as serious as other well-publicised corporate scandals. 9 Richards did not adopt a deontological position, as he was not concerned about following rules (Baugher & Weisbord, 2009). 10
A person who adopts a teleological position examines the expected consequences of actions to determine whether the actions are ethical, irrespective of the process by which the result is achieved (Baugher & Weisbord, 2009). Within this teleological position is ethical parochialism, where behaviour is deemed ethical if it protects the interests of the individuals ‘in-group’ (Henderson, Peirson, & Herbohn, 2011). 2 Richards’ actions included facilitating the extension of the fiscal quarter, allowing subordinates to obtain contracts after the quarter end, and failing to alert the finance and accounting departments about contracts that may have been backdated, thus misreporting affected revenues and earnings, amounting to misconduct. It may be argued that his positive act of facilitating the extension of the fiscal quarter, is more serious than his inaction, in failing to alert the finance and accounting departments about contracts