Employees, competitors and the board are other important stakeholders who must be taken into consideration as well.
There are a number of outcomes that must be noted for this evaluation. To the shareholders, the outcome of Dunn's actions was overwhelmingly positive. The company earned a high governance score, its stock price increased, and the risk posed by the leaks was mitigated. To Dunn, the actions were ultimately negative, but she performed her task to the best of her abilities, and this was valuable. To the board of directors, the outcome was somewhat negative, but neither Keyworth nor Perkins suffered much, both continuing to be incredibly wealthy people and neither having faced criminal prosecution or other infringement upon their freedoms. Their egos were the main victims of the investigation. The company suffered somewhat in the short run, in particular for the negative publicity it faced. That publicity, however, had little bearing on long-run earnings -- the company has earned record profits in four of the five years since the scandal became public (MSN Moneycentral, 2011). If anything, removing the leak assisted the company's profitability because it removed a competitive disadvantage that was providing critical information to the firm's competitors. Thus, when the consequences of Dunn's investigation are analyzed, there are few negative consequences and some overwhelmingly positive consequences. Those who suffered negative consequences were more than able to survive and thrive despite the setbacks. Even Dunn, who eventually faced charges for the investigation, saw those charges dropped and the attorney general who brought those charges faced a storm of criticism for doing so, indicating that the charges themselves may have been one of the most morally wrong things about the case.
From both the deontological and consequentialist perspectives, there is little case to be made that Dunn should have been forced to resign. In essence, she was forced to resign because she acted in the interests of the shareholders rather than the interests of the board. This was misplaced -- Dunn's role is to act as agent to the shareholders,...
Business ethics has become a serious subject of discussion the world over because of the rather intricate complexities attached to it. There are so many different facets to business related ethical problems that everyday something new emerges that needs to be tackled in the light of current legal structure or philosophical framework. The case of Patricia Dunn from HP might also sound like one of those complicated cases of ethics
HP and Pretexting Back in 2006, Hewlett Packard's management got themselves into both legal and public relations trouble by the way in which they decided to investigate the source of leaks from their Board of Directors to the news media. The case brings about questions about confidentiality and ownership of personal information, its worth and the accountability not only of those who get hold of the information dishonestly, but also those
Once it was announced, the board asked Keyworth to resign. At that point, Perkins also quit in a huff. But that was not all. He also launched a campaign in order to try and discredit Dunn, who he believed had betrayed his trust. It seems that the charges brought against Dunn are largely the result of Perkins's disinformation and discrediting campaign against her. Perkins is an enormously wealthy, powerful individual,
Perkins - who had retired at the age of 70 but was coming back on the board - had by this time muscled his way into a powerful position within the HP community; he and his powerful board ally, George Keyworth, held special "technology committee" meetings with key HP people the day before each board meeting. Stewart writes that Perkins' little group actually became a "board within a board," and
Further, the scandal, dubbed HPGate, damaged the brand and reputation of HP and the credibility of the executive team, valued assets for any company. Most disturbing and most convincing of proof of unethical conduct, is the fact that Dunn's actions violated California's state laws. Detectives, with the consent of Dunn, had used an illegal practice called "pretexting" to gain access to cell phone records. Pretexting is pretending to be an
At NIB (National Irish Bank), the unethical behavior of employees according to Knights and O'Leary (2005) was at no time suppressed. Leaders in this case according to the authors were largely concerned with profit maximization. This is a clear indication that when leaders fail to mould subordinates, the consequences could be dire. Indeed, a report issued by the inspector general with regard to the scandal at the institution revealed that
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now