Free Ethics Case Solution Critical Thinking Example

Amplified financial projections with the intention to look good in the books does more harm than good both in the eyes of stakeholders and the board members. Whenever there is s dramatic increase in the financial projections, usually, it is very hard to maintain good repute in the long term. Same is observed in the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO). Bob and Connie are responsible for the growth of the organization, and they are directly responsible for monthly and yearly financial expansion. However, unfortunately, they tend to amplify the financial performance in the newsletter and later when the facial year closed, there was a lot of explanation to do both in front of workers and the shareholders.
Each organization must keep its book straight. Any exaggeration which is known or intentional is totally wrong and unethical. In the above scenario, Bob intentionally amplifies the financial projections with the intention to earn good repute and enhance share value. However, by the end of the year, these artificially raised financial projections do more harm than good, and the company has to declare that the financial projections were not accurate. Not only the accounting department staff is affected, but it also sends a bad message to the clients who make a decision based on these untrue financial projections. Secondly, both Bob and Connie are deceiving the company and hiding their incompetence by tempering and amplifying the financial projections that are beyond the doctrines of ethics and morality.
There are a lot of people being affected by this. For instance, the entire accounting and finance department has to redo the financial calculations. They have to adjust their entire financial management system. Furthermore, the grant decision makers and the shareholders all are affected because of the untrue financial projections made by Bob and Connie. The newsletter is widely distributed, and the shareholders made their decisions on the financial reports. These not only by the end of the year prove their judgments wrong but the people also tend to doubt the authenticity of the newsletter which directly influences the image of the organization.
There are two possible alternatives to handle this dilemma. Fist option is to disclose the manipulation in the financial records should be reported to Allie, the president of the company. However, Allen and Marie have no idea if the top management is involved in it or not. The second option is to stay calm, let the blunders to the auditors and do not raise the voice for the security of the jobs.
As per the deontological school of thoughts, both Marie and Allen should take the decision based on their job duties and responsibilities. The decision should be in perfect accordance with the laws and the legal and moral requirements as stated in their job duties and responsibilities. They must stay loyal to the company and raise their voice. According to utilitarianism, the actions must be taken knowing all the consequences. In this case, it is beneficial for the organization to know what is going on. However, it may result in losing the jobs. As per the casuist ethical theory, the outcomes of the similar ethical dilemmas must be compared in the decision-making theory and therefore, Allen and Marie must determine what could be the outcomes based on their observation and the examples from the past. By the virtue ethical theory, the character and intention of Marie and Allen must be prioritized over their decision because it is the character that matters more than the behavior and scenario in which decision was taken.
As far as Allie is concerned, the course of action chosen must be in accordance with the interest of the organization. If Allen and Marie report the issue of amplified financial projections, then Allie must take some firm steps to take it. The identity of Marie and Allen must be kept in confidentiality, and an official notice must be issued to both Bob and Connie with a warning. It must be assured that Marie and Allen should not be victimized because of the actions of Bob or Connie.