Reference no: EM132798895

Sue was puzzled as to what course of action to take. She had recently started her job with a national accounting firm and she was already confronted with a problem that could affect her future with the firm. On an audit, she encountered a client who had been treating payments to a large number, but by no means a majority, of its workers as payments to independent contractors. This practice saves the client the payroll taxes that would otherwise be due on the payments if the workers were classified as employees. In Sue's judgment, this was improper as well as illegal and should have been noted in the audit. She raised the issue with John, the senior accountant to whom she reported. He thought it was a possible problem but did not seem willing to do anything about it. He encouraged her to talk to the partner in charge if she did not feel satisfied.

She thought about the problem for a considerable time before approaching the partner in charge. The ongoing professional education classes she had received from the employer emphasized the ethical responsibilities that she had as a certified public accountant and the fact that her firm endorsed adherence to high ethical standards. This finally swayed her to pursue the issue with the partner in charge of the audit. The visit was most unsatisfactory. Paul, the partner, virtually confirmed her initial reaction that the practice was wrong, but he said that many other companies in the industry follow such practice. He went on to say that if an issue was made of it, Sue would lose the account, and he was not about to take such action. Sue came away from the meeting with the distinct feeling that should she choose to pursue the issue, she would create an enemy.

Sue felt disturbed and decided to discuss the problem with some of her co-workers. She approached Bill and Mike, both of whom had been working for the firm a couple of years. They were familiar with the problem since they had encountered it when doing the audit the previous year. They expressed considerable concern that if she went over the head of the partner in charge of the audit, they could be in big trouble since they have failed to question the practice during the previous audit. They said that they realized it was probably wrong but they went ahead because it had been ignored in previous years and they knew their supervisor wanted them to ignore it again. They did not want to cause problems. They encouraged her to be a "team player" and drop the issue.

Sue considered her dilemma. She could go over the head of the partner in charge of the audit and take her chances. She realized that even if she was vindicated, she would probably have to change jobs. Certainly, her co-workers would not appreciate her actions. Another course of action was to do nothing. She thought the people in the firm would be the happiest with that alternative and it would probably help her career in the company. The only problem was she would still have to deal with her conscience. She knew she had to decide soon.

QUESTIONS

1. Is there evidence of goal conflict, cognitive conflict, and affective conflict in this case? Explain.

2. What types of role conflict is Sue probably experiencing?

3. What should Sue do? Why?