Ahmad Case 3

Case 3
Ethics, Moral Dilemmas, and Tough Decisions: The Many Challenges of Working in IT
Question 1: Companies are developing ethical policies and guidelines for legal reasons, but also
to clarify what is acceptable and what is not. Do you think any of the issues raised in the case
required clarification? Would you take exception to any of them being classified as inappropriate
behavior? Why do you think these things happen anyway?
Company internet and computer policies should always be clear, and policy authors should
ensure that all bases are covered. According to Senior HR Consultant, Martin Gabriel,
“company policy dictates the terms and conditions of employment.” Clear and comprehensive
policies properly presented to employees will minimize the occurrence of incidents violating
company policies. “When policies aren’t clear, ethical decisions are left to the judgment of IT
employees, which varies by person and the particular circumstances”. According to Jon Barton,
from his presentation “Effect of Corporate IT Policies on Otherwise Privileged Communication”,
companies can require potential employees sign off on policies prior to being hired and violation
of a policy could lead to termination.
The case, “Ethics, Moral Dilemmas, and Tough Decisions: The Many Challenges of Working in
IT”, discusses several IT issues, some of which appear to have needed clarification from the
company in which the issues occurred. Installing unlicensed software, using customer lists
stolen from a competitor, and employees making anonymous posts in internet forums beneficial
to their company and detrimental to competitors are examples where clarification may have been
needed (either in the form of a new policy or by updating an existing policy). In addition to
This study source was downloaded by 100000855982041 from CourseHero.com on 12-02-2022 02:09:36 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/125080840/Ahmad-Case-3docx/
clarification, management has to lead by example when it comes to issues such as these that
some may view as immaterial.
It’s obvious that all of the issues discussed in the case are inappropriate, even though some may
wrongfully place a handful of the issues in the gray area (e.g., using unlicensed software, using a
stolen customer list, and making anonymous internet posts to benefit one’s company and hurt a
competitor). Competitive environments can bring out the worst in people lacking strong moral
compasses and business ethics. Loose and/or favorable interpretations of the stockholder theory,
which states that a manager’s only responsibility is to increase profits legally and without fraud,
can also bring out the worst in people. This is evident in Whole Foods Market CEO John
Mackey’s decision to post anonymously on Yahoo Finance (to benefit his company and hurt
competitors) and in an assistant chief executive officer wanting to use a stolen customer list. In
each of these examples, each person was trying to give their business an advantage in an
unethical way. Although unethical and wrong, these are likely two examples where some may
find it easy to look the other way.
Issues such as the use of unlicensed software, anonymous detrimental internet posts, and theft of
a competitor’s private documents occur because of either a missing or insufficient company
policy or lack of leadership at the top. If a company takes the time to outline specific policies,
effectively communicates the policies, and holds people in violation of the policies accountable,
violations will be rare irrespective of whether some employees are weak in business ethics.
Accountability is an important aspect as it may be difficult for all managers to follow these
guidelines. Passing on an opportunity to view private information from a competitor or to save a
few dollars by using unlicensed software may be tempting to a manager trying to gain an
advantage or improve his or her department’s bottom line. Accountability can help prevent the
manager from trying to save a few dollars and gain an advantage in an unethical way.
Question 2: In the first example (Bryan’s), it is apparent that he did not believe justice had been
ultimately served by the decision his company made. Should he have taken the issue to the
authorities? Or was it enough that he reported the problem through the proper channels and let
the organization handle it, as was the recommendation of Linn Hynds? Provide a rationale for
the position you are willing to take on this matter.
Bryan should have taken the issue to the authorities. He was certain the executive had
downloaded the material and that whatever the executive used as an explanation to his superiors
simply wasn’t true. In instances when IT personnel identify criminal activity, such as
embezzlement, fraud, or child pornography as in Bryan’s case, they should report it within the
company first. The company should then take the issue to the authorities. If the company fails
to report the issue to the authorities as in this case (and it’s obvious that a crime occurred), the IT
person should go to the authorities. Bryan could have looked to the Association of Information
Technology Professionals’ (AITP) code of conduct, which requires local, state, provincial, and
federal laws to abide by, support, and respect.
Even though Linn Hands, a labor attorney, believes Bryan handled the situation exactly as he
should have, it does not appear that Bryan agrees. In the eyes of the law, he may have handled it
in an acceptable way. However, it does not appear that Bryan handled it in an acceptable way
according to his moral code as he is clearly guilt stricken. He stated that he still regrets not
taking what he found to the FBI. Bryan rationalized not reporting the incident to the authorities
because he feared that going above his bosses could jeopardize his job.
If Bryan had reported the issue to the authorities and subsequently been fired, he would have
likely been able to find another job even though the job market was tough. Because this was a
big company, the media would have become aware of the situation and Bryan would have
received a lot of support. Overwhelmingly people would have approved of his decision to go to
the authorities and held fault with the company that fired him. Because of the support and media
attention, he would have easily found a comparable job. However, due to fear of backlash
against the company for firing Bryan, it’s unlikely they would have fired him. On the other
hand, those that knew about it and promoted the executive may have found themselves culpable
and subject to termination. It’s even possible that they could have faced criminal charges along
the same lines as the former Penn State University officials facing failure to report suspected
child abuse charges stemming from the Penn State University scandal (San Francisco Chronicle).
Question 3: In the case, Gary chose not to stop his boss from installing unlicensed software,
although he refused to do it himself. If installing unlicensed software is wrong, is there any
difference between refusing to do it versus not stopping somebody else? Do you buy his
argument that it was not really going to hurt anybody? Why or why not?
Answer 3: There is a difference between refusing to install unlicensed software and not stopping
somebody else from doing so. Gary can’t be expected to turn his boss in for downloading
unlicensed software. Even though illegal, it’s unlikely that many people would report this to
company officials. If Gary’s boss is doing it, it’s likely that others within the company are doing
it and that they have a weak policy on the matter, if they have one at all. Even if Gary were to
report it anonymously via a hotline or other method, his boss would likely suspect him as the one
who reported him. This incident should be looked at differently than the one outlined in the
previous question. Even though both incidents are illegal, there’s a difference in seriousness and
classification. This is not to say that downloading unlicensed software is petty. In fact, selling
and using counterfeit software is taken very seriously as can be seen in this video showing a
police sting related to pirated software Gary rationalized acceptance of his boss’ illegal software
download by telling himself that no one would be hurt by it. Unfortunately for Gary, he’s wrong
in this assessment. Although his conscience his clear, the company could be negatively affected
if somehow the authorities became aware of the situation, which could hurt employees of the
company (e.g., action could be taken against the company resulting in fines or even job losses).
Even if the authorities didn’t find out, it’s possible that his boss could be hurt if the company had
a clear policy against downloading unlicensed software and was fired because of it (assuming
they somehow found out he did it). Outside of the company downloading the illegal software,
the company who initially developed the software is hurt. Obviously their sales are reduced each
time someone downloads their product without purchasing a license. This affects their profits
and, as a result, their ability to invest in their business (which includes hiring additional
workers).
Gary handled this situation the way a lot of other people would have handled it, by looking the
other way. Under the circumstances, if the company were to find out and take disciplinary action
against Gary’s boss, it’s unlikely that Gary would find himself also in trouble. This is because
Gary refused to download the software himself. Even though he didn’t report his boss, he
wouldn’t be blamed for that as most people understand how difficult it is to report your boss for
doing something against company policy. Situations like these can often be avoided by having
clear policies against such actions and by having a senior management team that stresses the
importance of adhering to company policies (i.e., they walk the walk and talk the talk).
Unlicensed software usage is prevalent throughout the world with 57% of the world’s computer
users admitting to using pirated software. Since piracy is this prevalent, a company’s only
defense is a firm policy coupled with accountability.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Ahmad Case 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ahmad Case 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3

behavior? Why do you think these things happen anyway?

from his presentation “Effect of Corporate IT Policies on Otherwise Privileged Communication”,

of a policy could lead to termination.

some may view as immaterial.

find it easy to look the other way.

a competitor’s private documents occur because of either a missing or insufficient company

guidelines. Passing on an opportunity to view private information from a competitor or to save a

the position you are willing to take on this matter.

federal laws to abide by, support, and respect.

although he refused to do it himself. If installing unlicensed software is wrong, is there any

defense is a firm policy coupled with accountability.

You might also like