|← Luxury Goods||"Risks are Mounting in Canada" by Macdonald Alistair →|
“Locker room talk” case presents a moral dilemma to Mr. Albert Gable. First, Gable is faced dilemma on whether or not he should disclose new information from bank loan books about the Wilsons financial position. The second ethical issue is whether he should resign from CPA to concentrate on the Wilsons work. Resigning could mean losing a substantial amount of bonus and compensation which needs to provide for his daughter’s education.
Ethics dilemma in case of “locker room” is a result of the Wilson family’s engaging the services of Gable as their financial planner. Hiring Mr. Gamble to conduct audit for the city bank led to discovery of the top secret information about the Wilson family. This is further complicated by loan officer who discloses information on dirty dealings of Mr. Larry. This set of information is the cause of Mr. Gamble’s dilemma about the Wilson family. The dilemma on whether to resign or not was caused by his new engagements with the Wilson family and city bank. It further complemented by his financial demands to pay tuition for his daughter. Mr. Gable should careful assess the possible consequences of his decision on the dilemma. He should also evaluate the rights and duties being affected, the fairness and virtues of his decision.
The major stakeholders in the case of “locker room talk” are Mr. Albert Gamble, Larry and Susan Wilson, the city bank, the bank loan officer and CPA firm. Analysis of stakeholders is carried out to determine how they will be affected by decision taken. Mr. Gable is the decision maker in this case. His decision will affect himself as well as other stakeholders. He also has the option keeping quiet but whichever decision he makes it will harm and benefit the stakeholders.
Disclosing information obtained from bank files will amount to breach of duty as the auditor. This decision will also put his work with the Wilson family and bank at a risk and will taint his relationship with Mr. Larry and the bank. However, it will save Mrs. Wilson from a possible set up by his husband and financial loss. Mr. Gable will incur financial lose if he resigns from CPA but will be able to concentrate on his new assignment at the Wilsons and bank.
Mr. Larry stands to lose a lot if Mr. Gable discloses his true financial positions and might be sued by his wife. His relationship with most of stakeholders will be tainted for letting him down. He might also sue the bank for breaching the duty of confidentiality and this might taint the bank’s image for breaching its duty of confidentiality and giving out the clients’ financial information. The relationship between the bank officer and Mr. Larry could be jeopardized for giving out confidential information by Mr. Gable. The CPA firm will lose a crucial partner and financial planner if Mr. Gable resigns from the company (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997).
Stakeholder impact analysis
Stakeholder analysis can be assigned with the use of numerical values to determine the potential risks and impacts of Mr. Gable’s decision. This is because the given decision taken by Mr. Gable impacts differently on every stakeholder in the case. Similarly, different decisions impact differently on any given stakeholder in the case of “locker room talk”. This is essential in determining which decisions have minimal risks on the stakeholders (Romeo, 2008).
Disclosing information on the Wilsons’ true financial position will benefit Mrs. Susan. This even though ethical, will harm a number of stakeholders. Therefore, Mr. Gable should not openly disclose such information because it will cause more harm than benefits to stakeholders in case of ‘locker room talk’. The consequences of keeping quiet will unfairly harm Mrs. Wilson and is unethical. The dilemma is that Mr. Gable can either resign or concentrate on his new assignment or can continue being a partner. Resigning will mean losing his yearly financial bonuses which he requires to pay for his daughter’s tuition.
Course of action
Consequentialism or Teleology of philosophical approach is best suited in addressing the “Locker room talk” case. The possible decisions have been analyzed in terms of their potential benefits and harm to the stakeholders. The rights of all stakeholders have been considered in the decisions that will be made to help to address the ethical issues in the case. The cost benefits analysis has been taken to ensure that decisions are fair and ethical to all stakeholders.
Mr. Albert Gable should not directly disclose his new findings about the Wilson family’s finances. He should instead use his professional opportunity while working with them to demand information that could expose scandal so as to save Mrs. Wilson from probable financial loss in the future. This should be done professionally such that he stays on the safe side of law and morally. For instance, he may request the loan status of all the family businesses as a requirement to carry out his duties as a financial planner for the Wilsons.
Mr. Gable should not resign from being a partner of CPA firm for various reasons. First, because he is still not sure about his working at the Wilsons given the new revelation about the family controversy. Family conflicts and possibility of him being dragged into it could ruin his job with the Wilsons. Another reason is the financial demands he is facing which are likely to be sorted by bonuses he is expecting from the CPA firm (Mintz and Morris, 2008).
Decision making process should be conducted ethically and must conform to norms and laws. It starts by identifying ethical issues in the presented case followed by gathering all facts necessary for fair decision making. Identification of stakeholders, relevant values and possible alternatives are essential elements in decision making process.