How an organization’s top management stands by its fundamental doctrine

How an organization’s top management stands by its fundamental doctrine

How an organization’s top management stands by its fundamental doctrine during a crisis discloses a lot on ethics. The Centennial data breach that exposed the personal information of about fourteen million U.S. customers is a catastrophe of monumental magnitude. In this case study, the theory of altruism is violated while it endorses the theory of egoism. The method of egoism upholds that people should behave in a manner that helps their interests and not of other people. When some top management members decide to sell shares a few days after the breach, we conclude that information on the offense reaches the senior management, but they choose not to tell their customers but decide to sell shares. The senior executives act in a manner that benefits them but not their customers.

Centennial’s conduct was unethical. There is no clear explanation as to why the firm did not inform its customers of the breach. What we can deduce from the incident is either it was too humiliating, or there was a hidden motive by a top executive. The holdup deprived the firm’s customers the chance to take proper actions to alleviate future destruction from the disclosure of personal information. Customers who were making applications all along had no idea that their processing could be illegal and encompass private data stolen from Centennial Home Mortgage.

When the firm’s top executive decides to sell shares worth $ 1.8 million days after a worker files a breach report, the only viable conclusion that the public can make is that the management was aware of the violation. Many firms globally have ethics codes that necessitate the notification of the Human resource manager and the Board of Directors when a security breach occurs in an organization. In the Centennial case, information reached top executive, but they decided to sit on the information and sold shares. The management may face legal bills whether they are guilty or not guilty, and they may face jail time if the judge finds them guilty. Therefore, the administration is not free of hurt, just like the customers who lost their data to hackers.

Whistle-blowers’ private and professional lives are affected the moment they bring information to light. The probability of being fired and losing your case are high, but it does not mean that good work receives a reward always. It is necessary if people decide to be whistleblowers, they should be very cautious. There might be laws that protect these people, but whether you receive the protection is another different story. In the Centennial case, the whistle blower has choose between saving his job and allowing his juniors to take the blame or stand for the truth and lose his job. When whistle-blowers lose their jobs, they have an option to file a case in the courts, but it does not guarantee that they will get their old job back.

To remedy the situation and maintain customer confidence, the firm can compensate all the affected persons’. Customers’ may decide to file a suit but it is essential that the organization offers to compensate people before this suit is filed. Though most of the clients may leave, it is prudent that the organization settles the claims. Also, it is essential that the company updates its recovery plan and prepares for future breaches. The firm may suffer a loss of business in the future because nobody is willing to invest their money in a company with trust issues. Ethically, according to the theories, I will consider employing altruism, which asserts that people should act in a manner that will help others. I will put the well-being of customers ahead of my own.