Section I.
According to the case, both Will and Jess are at a crossroad to make very difficult decisions individually. Will is supposed to give a correct report and position of his audit findings to his client, Minter Metroplex. Minter Metroplex has contracted Will’s firm for the assignment and are hopeful and trust that will they receive a true report reflecting their true financial records and position at the time of the audit. The report may probably be shared amongst Minter Metroplex top management team. On the other hand his feelings of attraction towards Jess pegged on their history of intimacy stands in the way. Will understands that the revelation of the true standings of the report may jeopardize Jess’s career. Will’s intimate love for Jess blinds him and chooses to take advantage of a vulnerable Jess chooses to use the opportunity brought forth by her negligence on her employer’s financial records to rekindle their former relationship. Will also has to make a decision to protect the integrity of his profession. Another decision that Will has to ponder about is what would happen to his own career in the event that things blow out of proportion later on and the truth cannot be hid anymore.
Considering, Jess’s position, her understanding and admittance of her mistake pits her in a tight corner both with Will and her current employer; Minter Metroplex. Her mistake raised a false diminishing return alarm in the organization and as a result several precautionary measures were taken including those that caused harm to her colleagues. Jess may have to choose to stand for the truth and report her financial misreporting to her employer’s management and wait for the consequences. Being a CPA herself, this may end up ruining her career in the event that her employer would not forgive her. It may be worse still if she loses her practicing license as a result. Alternatively she may choose to give in to Will’s advances, cover the truth and behave like nothing happened.
Considering all these options that both Will and Jess have, it will be obvious to note that any of these choices may affect both of them. The other stakeholders that may be affected by any of these decisions include the management of Minter Metroplex, shareholders of Minter Metroplex, the three administrative employees retrenched as a result of the erroneously reported diminished earnings, the members of the whole audit profession and the general public. In the event that any of the decisions taken by either Will or Jess results to the truth being exposed, it may bring about a situation of mistrust on the CPA profession. As a result, management, shareholders and the general public may not readily trust CPA professionals to competently handle their business financial matters. The profession may thus suffer a major blow in terms of diminished clientele. Jess may lose her job and her career may be tarnished in the process. The management team of Minter Metroplex may also be reprimanded for their poor oversight role and their rush decision to lay off innocent staff. Jess also had the option of revealing the truth to a trusted section of the management team at Minter Metroplex, admit her mistakes seek their forgiveness and ask them to vouch for her and defend her with the rest of the management and the shareholders. This way they can find an amicable internal solution that does not need to be blown out of proportion externally. The table below summarizes the possible impacts of the possible decisions that Will and Jess may make.
Section II.
A utilitarian perspective, would view the concealing of the truth between Jess and Will as the most beneficial of all the possible options. A utilitarian perspective bases the choice of a decision on the benefit-harm scale where the greater the benefit the most appropriate that decision is . In the case of Jess and Will, as much as it is very unethical, covering the truth would first of all shield the auditing profession from public ridicule and backlash. Consequently this would thus uphold the respect the general public and potential clients hold on the profession. Jess and Will would maintain their jobs and career, Will may win Jess’s love for imagining he sacrificed telling the truth for her and the shareholders would never know that the company’s earnings were ever understated and thus never received the correct dividends due. The greatest perceived harm this decision may have is on the employees who were erroneously laid off their jobs. But better still their chances of getting employment elsewhere were not ruined. They can still be employed by another employer unlike for Jess who may lose both her job and a chance to practice in the future if she happens to be blacklisted by the concerned regulation and professional bodies.
On a universalism perspective, the decision to conceal the truth may cause unjustifiable harm to a section of the stakeholders. The theory of universalism stipulates that there are no justifiable grounds whatsoever to cause harm to another person . It is very unethical for Jess and Will to conspire to conceal the truth. This decision may mean that the employees who were wrong relieved of their jobs would never get justice. They may continue languishing in joblessness at the expense of someone else’s mistake. The shareholders may also never receive their rightful dividends because of the perceived loss. Such a decision also exposes the general public and the potential clients to cunning manipulations by auditors. Therefore the theory of universalism in this case would require that Jess takes responsibility for her actions. It would require her to swallow her pride and face the management and tell them the truth. If it is possible to do so in a diplomatic way, so be it. Only the truth was able to set her free in the long run.
Finally in consideration to the profit maximization approach, Minter Metroplex steps to shield their profits by measures including laying off of innocent employees was uncalled for and great display of disregard to ethics. The concept of profit maximization promotes what leads to greater profits irrespective of whether such means may result to harm for others . If Will sticks with his intention of hiding the truth so as to win Jess over, it constitutes to maximizing his gains. This is similar to whether Jess chooses to hide the truth too for her personal maximum gain.
Section III.
Being on Jess shoes, I would choose to reveal the truth to my supervisor and find a way out of solving the problem internally within the organization. I would also request the organization to reinstate the sacked employees. To avoid conflict of interest with the reinstated employees and possibly the rest of the other employees I would resign and go seek employment elsewhere. In this way, I would escape Will’s lustful advances and also grant justice to the employees sacked because of my mistakes I would thus fulfill the requirement of the theory of Universalism. I would not choose to maximize my gains by compromising my integrity both as a woman and as a profession by applying the concept of profit maximization and harming others. I would also disagree to end up with a means that causes other means and thus refute the theory of universalism.
Works Cited
Deckop, John R. "Theoretical Bases For Analyzing The Ethics Of A Decision." Scarpello, Vida. The Handbook of Human Resource Management Education: Promoting and Effective and Efficient Curriculum. 1st. Los Angeles: Sage Publication, 2008.
