Reference no: EM132201312
Define the objective of the case study. Identify the important players and their decision making, official and historical mission within the organization. State the risk factors and their remedial options and write an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY focusing on key elements.
CASE STUDY: Michael J., an employee of the phone company recognizes that he has divided loyalties. The company has treated him well and, despite some minor disagreements, he gets along quite well with upper management and his own department. However, the phone company is a public utility, regulated for the public interest by the state's Public Utility Commission (PUC) As such. Michael J. recognizes that his firm owes a loyalty to citizens that goes beyond the simple responsibility that other firms owe to their consumers.
Once a year, as part of a major fundraising drive for a local charity, the phone company encourages its employees to donate their personal time and money to this charity. This year. however, Michael J discovers that a significant amount of company resources are being used to support the charity. The company is printing posters and sending out mail at its own expense and is using employees on company time to promote the fundraiser. When Michael J. brought this to the attention of his manager, the whole incident was dismissed as trivial. After all, the resources were going to charity.
After some consideration, Michael J. judged that these charitable efforts were betraying the public trust. The public, and not private individuals acting as their agents, oughe to decide for themselves when to contribute to charity, As a result, he notified the PUC of this misallocation of funds. Knowing that records of calls from his desk could easily be traced. Michael J. made the calls from pay phones and from his house.
As required by law, the PUC investigated the charges. Although the facts were as Michael J reported, the PUC judged that the misallocation was not substantial enough to constitute a violation of the public trust. However, executives of the phone company were less willing to dismiss the incident. They were upset at what they judged to be serious disloyalty among their employees.
Although they suspected that Michael J. was the whistleblower, there was no proof that he was. A check of his office phone records showed no calls placed to the PUC. However. since this was the phone company, it was easy enough to trace calls made from Michael J's home and cross-check these against calls made to and from the PUC's offices. They did so, confirmed their suspicions, and disciplined Michael J.