Ethics -Radio Shack Ceo Sacandal Essay

Ethics is the consideration of how human actions buns improve or deteriorate the environments in which we work and live. In the wake of recent bodily scandals like Enron and WorldCom leading to trials and imprisonment of previously powerful (Chief Executing Officer) chief operating officers public trust in chief executive officers has diminished. indeed when the story about the forged academic corroboration of Dave Edmondson, CEO of communicate Shack came it re-ignited the mistrust.This paper will provide a brief oscilloscope of the scandal and detailed analysis of the ethical discerns involved and whether the actions incorporaten by RadioShack were ethical or not. Background Dave Edmondson was on a fast calling track and was named CEO of Radio Shack in May 2005. In February, 2006 Radio Shack announced that its CEO, David Edmonson has resigned over psyches increase over his resume. The arm Worth Star- Telegram discovered that he had not earned degrees in theology and psy chological science from Heartland Baptist College as claimed on his resume.Moreover Edmonson had just now stainless two semesters at the college and the college did not even offer a psychology major. Edmonson admitted to the errors calling them misstatements and resigned in the aftermath of the corporate scandal. Analysis The main issue about this case is not near forging of the academic credentials but how Radio Shack handled the case that generated criticism from public and dour it into a media circus. The basic hypernorms of honesty and integrity were not met by RadioShack in handling the situation.Edmondson did not display fairness towards Radio Shack by trying to communicate the value of knowledge via false degrees. It was not just the disappointing fact that Edmondson lied on his resume but what was every bit troubling was the individual and corporate response to the scandal. Radio Shack back up its CEO and failed to give public any substantial answers. The ethical brain then becomes that what is the responsibility of board of directors? Should they oversee the personal ethics of a CEO as long as he is driving the shareholders level best value and yielding higher profits for he firm or they should step up and take responsibility for their own short comings, take the required action and set an example of driving the company by ethical set and standards not just profits? Radio dwell displayed overlook of responsibility as a company when it came to take self-control of the issue and failed to address the public with compassion and was unable to provide illuminance regarding the resume issue. From philosophical approach- consequentialism view holds that whether an act is morally even off depends only on the consequences of that act.Edmondsons decision to lie on his resume morose out to bring good consequences only for him in terms of a career hike. Deontology brings up these questions Was Edmondsons decision legal, fair, just or right? No, it w as not and transparency and information sharing regarding the falsified resume might moderate led to different outcomes both for Edmondson and RadioShack. Considering the virtue ethics, did Edmondson and RadioShacks decision confront expected virtues? The company had built its image and reputation over some age.This reputation entailed virtues of trustworthiness, compassion, integrity and responsibility. It did not seem that Edmondsons decision to not come clean was based on any of these considerations. He like blue murder violated the virtue ethics. The stakeholders involved were shareholders, board of directors, employees and common people. He could be cut slack for creation an ambitious young individual at the start of his career but how can the ignorance be overseen that in the years of making towards a CEO he never came clean. Infact when the scandal was raised and he was confronted he did not even admit right away.This displays lack of character and credibility. A compa nys leader should be see-through and trustworthy. From a modified moral standards approach I feel that at that place wasnt any net benefit to the company from his falsified educational claims. It was as well not fair to all the stakeholders involved as there could jump been a better candidate who got rejected due to a on-key but less 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 loss of public trust.Also 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 compliance at RadioShack. They had a enactment of conduct and code of ethics in place detailing the responsibilities of the employees but how realistically this was being followed can be easily criticized based on Edmondsons case. I believe that companys code of ethics should be collective in its values and system actions.Corporate risk can be reduced and even mitigated if the organization can align values for ethical motivation and action. Edmondson did take accountability of his unethical actions later and RadioShacks 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 broke the company would have been able to save its reputation and maintained credibility.