'Ethics -Radio Shack Ceo Sacandal Essay\r'

'Ethics is the consideration of how human actions potentiometer improve or deteriorate the environments in which we overwork and live. In the wake of recent incorporate shits alike(p) Enron and WorldCom leading to trials and imprisonment of previously powerful (Chief put to death Officer) chief operating officer’s humankind trust in CEO’s has diminished. Therefore when the story ab let out the forged academic security of Dave Edmondson, CEO of radiocommunication domicile came it re-ignited the mistrust.\r\nThis paper will provide a brief background of the scandal and detailed psychoanalysis of the respectable issues involved and whether the actions taken by communicate chase were estimable or non. Background: Dave Edmondson was on a dissolute career track and was named CEO of radio train in May 2005. In February, 2006 Radio Shack announced that its CEO, David Edmonson has resigned over questions raised over his resume. The fort Worth Star- Telegram di scovered that he had not earned degrees in theology and psychology from Heartland Baptist College as claimed on his resume.\r\nMoreover Edmonson had only finished both semesters at the college and the college did not eve offer a psychology major. Edmonson admitted to the errors calling them â€Å"misstatements” and resigned in the aftermath of the corporate scandal. Analysis: The main issue about this slip-up is not just forging of the academic credentials entirely how Radio Shack handled the case that generated objurgation from public and turned it into a media circus. The basic hypernorms of truth and integrity were not met by RadioShack in handling the situation.\r\nEdmondson did not display fairness towards Radio Shack by trying to communicate the value of fellowship via false degrees. It was not just the disappointing particular that Edmondson lied on his resume just what was every bit troubling was the individual and corporate response to the scandal. Radio Sh ack supported its CEO and failed to give public any substantial answers. The ethical question thus becomes that what is the state of board of directors? Should they oversee the personal ethical motive of a CEO as long as he is driving the shareholders maximum value and capitulation higher profits for he firm or they should step up and take responsibility for their experience short comings, take the required action and present an example of driving the company by ethical set and standards not just profits? Radio shack displayed lack of responsibility as a company when it came to take ownership of the issue and failed to plow the public with compassion and was unable to provide illumination regarding the resume issue. From philosophical approach- consequentialism view holds that whether an act is chastely right depends only on the consequences of that act.\r\nEdmondson’s finish to lie on his resume turned out to bring good consequences only for him in impairment of a career hike. Deontology brings up these questions: Was Edmondson’s finis legal, fair, just or right? No, it was not and transparency and information sharing regarding the falsified resume might bear led to different outcomes both for Edmondson and RadioShack. Considering the legality ethics, did Edmondson and RadioShack’s ending demonstrate pass judgment virtues? The company had built its image and written report over many years.\r\nThis write up entailed virtues of trustworthiness, compassion, integrity and responsibility. It did not seem that Edmondson’s decision to not come clean was based on any of these considerations. He bluntly violated the virtue ethics. The stakeholders involved were shareholders, board of directors, employees and common people. He could be cut slack for being an ambitious early days individual at the start of his career but how can the ignorance be overseen that in the years of qualification towards a CEO he never came clea n. Infact when the scandal was raised and he was confronted he did not so far admit right away.\r\nThis displays lack of character and credibility. A company’s leader should be logical and trustworthy. From a modified moral standards approach I feel that on that point wasn’t any crystallize benefit to the company from his falsified educational claims. It was also not fair to all the stakeholders involved as there could have been a better candidate who got rejected due to a truthful but less(prenominal) flashy resume. Also the distribution of benefits was enjoyed by the CEO whereas the burdens were shared by him and the company equally in terms of a bad reputation and red ink of public trust.\r\nAlso RadioShack was not consistent with the virtues expected by its employees as they did not bring them and other stakeholders in the loop during the media frenzy which led to a discontented employee atmosphere. This also leads to question the monitoring and meekness at RadioShack. They had a tag of conduct and code of ethics in place detailing the responsibilities of the employees but how realistically this was being followed can be good criticized based on Edmondson’s case. I trust that company’s code of ethics should be incorporated in its values and system actions.\r\n incorporated risk can be reduced and even mitigated if the organization can align values for ethical motivation and action. Edmondson did take accountability of his wrong actions later and RadioShack’s board of directors also learned the hard way that blind support of a CEO without any solid evidence is unwise and can tarnish the reputation of the company. If they had accepted and reacted to responsibility as soon as the scandal stone-broke the company would have been able to save its reputation and maintained credibility.\r\n'