Running Head: Chris and Alison Weston 1 [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Running head: CHRIS AND ALISON WESTON

1

Case Study 3/13/16 Ohio University

Introduction Chris and Alison Weston were successful, well educated, and an ambitious couple. Their drive to succeed in a new business venture landed them in prison for 18-20 months each. Their incarceration came as a shock to those close to them. In a new venture, Chris found himself under water, struggling to

Chris and Alison Weston

2

fill positions in an understaffed organization which was operating on shaky moral grounds. The “get it done” environment, lead Chris to work with his wife to open a business called Staffing Resources in her maiden name. This was done to assist in filling the open positions in the organization. The couple often heard the words ‘conflict of interest’ but thought nothing of it since they considered themselves to be outright moral individuals in the community. There was nothing in the company policy that outlined the guidelines for contracting with a family member, and others in the organization had actually employed family members previously. As time went on, Alison became more of an assistant to Chris, completing work outside of recruitment scope. As long as she was completing work for the organization she saw no issue with continuing to bill and over bills hours. The couple found themselves on a very slippery moral and ethical slope. In the following pages, this case will be examined on the grounds of moral disengagement developed by Albert Bandura. The goal is to identify the different moral issues throughout the case and examine how these issues landed the couple in prison. Case Information & Ethics Relevance In the case of the Westons, the decision-making process can be focused on ethical versus business decisions. A business decision is defined by the Overview of Human Nature (2016) as, “a choice made between alternative courses of action in a situation of uncertainty that affects business performance and measures.” An ethical decision on the other hand is defined as “a problem or situation that requires a person or group to choose between an alternative that must be evaluated as right and wrong” (Overview of Human Nature, 2016). The Westons viewed the creation of the staffing company as a business decision. The decision was made to create the business to allow for additional profits for their family. The ethical implications of that decision were not considered. Chris believed that creating a business to help him succeed, within his organization, would not be an ethical conflict of interest. However, many of the issues with Westons’ decision to go forward with the creation of this entity began with a set of “ill-conceived goals” (Ethical Breakdowns, 2016). Chris felt that in order to be viewed by others as successful, he needed to continue to climb the corporate ladder and obtain more superficial “things”. Many of these ill-conceived goals obscured his moral agency by displacing the responsibility of his actions on the authority (Sucher and Moore, 2012), or in this case his bosses. Chris noted that many members of the executive team were known for breaking many rules, including state and federal employment laws. Chris used this information as a means to displace the responsibility of his actions (Sucher and Moore, 2012). Initially, the Westons were aware that creating a company might have been ethically wrong. This led to difficulty with making the initial decision to create the company. However, as defined by the slippery slope mentality, “the first time you violate the principle is difficult, the second time less difficult, and eventually, it becomes routine to violate the principle. Unethical behavior in this situation develops slowly. We become less sensitive to it as it amplifies over time” (Ethical Breakdowns, 2016). The monetary gains the Westons received as a result of their decisions were exacerbated by Alison’s motived blindness, as the gains were in her interest as well (Ethical Breakdowns, 2016). The consequences of their actions were distorted because the Westons believed what they were doing was benefitting Chris’s company and the money they were receiving was marginal in comparison to the overall profit of the corporation. Rights and Wrongs of Ethical Theory and Practice Chris needed good qualified technical people to fill numerous positions in the firm. Feeling guilty from moving his family, he wanted to give his wife Alison the opportunity to become involved. There was no policy stating that you had to disclose a contract with a family member. The companies’ “get it done” environment gave Chris the impression that this move was indeed acceptable. This was one of his first wrongs. He needed to hire people and Alison could help since she had experience if recruiting. This was helping his family, his business and the people he employed. It was true Utilitarianism, the greatest

Chris and Alison Weston

3

good for the greatest number. However, one of first signs of moral disengagement is using the greater good excuse in order to justify one’s actions (Sucher & Moore, 2012). Opening the company under his wife’s maiden name was an act of euphemistic labeling. Hiding the “conflict of interest” through a different name only continued the wrongs in this situation. Our intentions must be for the right reasons according to Kant. Chris’s intention was trying to cover up this conflict, even though others were using family members for outside services. Again Chris continues on the road of moral disengagement, diffusing the responsibility through justification in the actions of others (Sucher & Moore, 2012). Chris and Alison continue to slide in the wrong direction when they start invoicing for more work than was performed. Chris had a feeling of entitlement and the companies’ ethical standards made it easy to rationalize. Undetected small infractions lead to more infractions starting the slippery slope (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011). Chris was displacing the responsibility of his actions on his superiors. He felt his actions were not bad by comparison, yet another warning sign of moral disengagement (Sucher & Moore, 2012). The rights of this situation come to fruition once the Weston’s have completed their prison sentences. Chris and Alison rebuild their lives, marriage, and legacy. They realize that small missteps are huge and even though you are rewarded it does not make it right. They now have accountability partners and evaluate every action. They do this to ensure that they do not stray. Chris and Alison have come full circle. They have cultivated virtuous character (Arnold, 2013, pp. 31,32). People’s perception is no longer what matters and unethical actions run rampant in our society. It is their ability to make ethically and morally sound decisions that gives them inner peace. The same type of influences which led the Weston’s to make bad decisions can be generalized to other organizations. All that is needed is the presence of inappropriate self-interest, an environment of unethical practices and weak governance. The fall of Enron is a well-known example of decisions resulting from a failure in judgement. Although the unethical decisions which led to the fall of Enron were made on a much larger scale, many of the same elements were present during the Enron debacle. For example, Enron’s unethical business practices to appreciate stock by hiding losses were allowed to continue because many analysts did not down rate Enron. “Even after the accounting problems had been announced in October 2001 (Healy, 2003).” Enron was operating in an environment of inappropriate self-interest and weak governance. This inappropriate self-interest was in the form of “many analysts [which] had financial incentives to recommend Enron to their clients to support their firms’ investment banking deals with Enron. (Healy, 2003)” The flawed judgment that led to unethical decisions of the Westons and the leadership of Enron can translate to organizations and other influential individuals when red flags appear but are deliberately ignored. Those decisions which are high risk, require appropriate safeguards, and require resources devoted to protecting the ethical integrity of those decisions (Campbell, 2009). Summary of Case Learning Potential Ultimately, Chris and Alison Weston were sentenced between 24 to 30 months in prison. This was for collective decisions made over the years that gradually led the couple to be convicted of three counts of mail fraud. Alison Weston starkly frames the reality of these events when she states that if Chris had asked, “[do you] want to steal $1,600,200.00,” her answer would have been, “absolutely not.” In retrospect, the progressively unethical decisions that led Chris and Alison Weston to their incarceration did not make sense to them, but as Chris said, “at the time it made sense.” The gradual decision making process of the Weston’s situation and their perceived circumstances at the time that the decisions were made allowed the couple’s actions to snowball into three counts of mail fraud. Initially the Weston’s did not seem to even recognize their selective actions as potentially unethical. As Bandura (2002) states, “people do not operate as autonomous moral agents, impervious to the social realities in which they are enmeshed.” Chris’s company culture exposed him to unethical practices by

Chris and Alison Weston

4

the company leadership (Sucher, 2011). The culture together with the “get it done” environment allowed the Westons to morally disengage and minimize their unethical actions. As time went on the situation became easier to justify to themselves and their actions became increasingly unethical. As Chris Weston said, “I deserved the option to allow my wife to do this work.” Over time their intended actions shifted from an attitude of a mutually beneficial relationship between companies to one of self-entitlement. As stated in Campbell (2009), “the first and most familiar red flag condition, the presence of inappropriate self-interest, typically biases the emotional importance we place on information.” This can cause errors in judgement which lead to bad decisions. The progressively unethical and highly situational decision making of the Weston’s are two learning points which this case centers around. These two points are what allowed the Weston’s to progressively rationalize these actions in an environment where they felt justified. Alone, many of the actions the Westons took were not acts intended to harm Chris’s company or strictly to benefit the Westons. However, as Bandura (2002) states, “the massive threats to human welfare stem mainly from deliberate acts of principle, rather than from unrestrained acts of impulse.” When the Westons progressively compartmentalized their actions over time, the self-perception of their actions evolved in the vacuum of their perceived circumstances from mutually beneficial to justifiable self-entitlement.

Works Cited Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Ethical Breakdowns. Harvard Business Review, 1-9.

Chris and Alison Weston

5

Sucher, S. J., & Moore, C. (2011). Chris and Alison Weston. Harvard Business School, 1-5. Arnold, D. G., Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (2013). Ethical Theory and Business (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Sucher, S. J., & Moore, C. (2012). A Note on Moral Disengagment. Harvard Business School. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101-119. Finkelstein, S., Whitehead, J., & Campbell, A. (2009). Think again: Why good leaders make bad decisions. Business Strategy Review, 20(2), 62-66. Palepu, K., & Healy, P. M. (2003). The Fall of Enron. SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal, 17(2), 3-26. Retrieved from http://www.iuc-edu.eu/group/sem1_L2/BFC/BFC The Fall of Enron.pdf M., Love. (2015). Ethical Breakdowns. Lecture presented in Ohio University College of Business M., Love. (2015). An Overview of Human Moral Nature. Lecture presented in Ohio University College of Business