Ms Watkins example essay topic

Justification of Sherron Watkins I obtained a copy of the memo written to Kenneth Lay Chairman of Enron, by Sherron Watkins (1). In reading this memo I applied the elements in the law of agency (2). Ms. Watkins's concerns were sound in that it later came to a head and was proven. She showed to be a loyal employee, but was raising questions of wrongful deeds, which in turn were criminal. Where as this is a justifiable act, she was not required to hold back confidential information she had come upon. This memo implies that although criminal activity was apparent, she instead trying to rectify it with Kenneth Lay for the sake of saving the organization.

The memo was not threatening by any means, it was simply full of information, and questionable acts that she was concerned would ruin Enron's name. She listed 4 personnel she believed to be the sole culprits behind the accounting practices. I believe that in applying the law of agency Ms. Watkins was justified in her choice to blow the whistle internally to Kenneth Lay, but should have gone one step further to authorities right after. Unfortunately, Kenneth Lay brushed off her concerns and never took any further action, due to his own knowledge of criminal accounting practices.

Furthermore, Ms. Watkins was acting solely in the best interest of the organization, and not herself. Footnotes: 1. http: // . It mweb. com / enron. jpg 2. Boatright pg., 108-109 Retaliation The current websites I visited did not seemingly portray Ms. Watkins in a negative manner. Questions, however, were raised at why she chose to notify Kenneth Lay, Chairman of Enron, versus other authorities, and it was felt that she in essence was attempting to save his job, with a recommendation with her own solutions. In an article for the Houston Chronicle (1) discusses that although this has helped her become a celebrity as a whistle blower, a few feel this is not quite an appropriate title.

A professor at Rice University's Jones Graduate School of Management felt she approached this with Kenneth Lay as a marketing perspective rather than a whistle blower. In addition, because of the vital information that Ms. Watkins disclosed she is there by protected by the law (2). She was acting in the best interest for the public and the organization and was a benefit to society. Because of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, she was supported by speaking out against corruption. Although this is held more from a moral view rather than a legal one, it coincides with Ms. Watkins right to disclose confidential information based on criminal activity. Footnotes: 1. web 2.

Boatright pg., 115-117 Case Study: The Case of the Willful Whistle-Blower 1. Jim Bower had reason to blow the whistle on Fairways. He took steps in the best interest of the consumers and for the sake of Fairway's workers. Jim Bower had well-founded points that if the issue of the flaws in power plant designs were not made public 15 years prior than Fairways might hide something substantial yet again. 2.

Dr. Wehmhoefer, I went on a search to see if there were any statute of limitations regarding this case, and I did not discover any. I would assume that this may not mean that there are not any limitations but I cannot find them. I would however like the answer to this, and where to locate the information. 3.

In my opinion, I believe quite a bit was accomplished by Jim Bowers blowing the whistle in this case. It was stated that a few lawsuits were incorporated, which meant that certain consumers retrieved some of the money from the inflated cost they were paying. From a moral and ethical point of view, if Fairways was not in the wrong, the report that was discovered by Jim Bower would not have been hidden for fifteen years, and all would not have acted so abruptly over the findings. Rather than fixing the costly problem they saved money which was a selfish act and not at all thinking of the consumer who kept them in business.

4. The only way similar results could have been achieved is if Ken Deaver or Bob would have blown the whistle or spoke out honestly to the consumers. Ken Deaver was aware of the flaws fifteen years prior, and had the opportunity to do the right thing and correct them. Although Bob was not aware of the issue until Jim Bower brought it to his attention, it was wrong of him not to support his employee's concerns and justify his actions outwardly. Footnotes: Donaldson & Gini pg., 130-135.