Case Anaylsis Working in Jumandia

Sonya Myerson has found herself in an unethical situation. She has discovered that the legal line for next year's budget went from $1250.00 to $5 million. She discussed her findings with her direct superior, Jack Stanek, who dismissed the $5 million as a consulting fee and that it was normal procedure. Stanek may have been practicing cultural relativist which as the old saying goes 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do' (Donaldson, 2003). In a developing nation such as Jumandia paying officials may be perfectly acceptable.

After performing an internal investigation at Parker regarding a typical global budget for legal expenses, and an external investigation with another company building in Jumandia, Sonya discovered that Parker seemed to be the only one paying out large sums of cash to cut through the country's red tape. A week after her first discussion with Stanek, she decided to confront him again as it now seemed unethical and clearly illegal in the United States. The archetypical standard that should be followed when operating globally is known as ethical imperialism; whereby the organization would conduct business as it would in its country of origin (Donaldson, 2003). Stanek in no uncertain terms; reiterated that Sonya had a bright future and not to screw it up now.

The next day Stanek has another meeting with Sonya explaining to her that Jumandia is not the place for her and that more time at headquarters would help season her for another international assignment. He also mentioned that an opportunity in Norway was on the horizon and it is ethnically parallel to the United States; meaning it was more closely aligned with ethical imperialism.

Sonya must now use problem solving skills in communicating with headquarters. There are four steps she will need to go through to effectively communicate her suspicions that the forecasted legal fees are being used to pay off people to get Parker Petroleum moving ahead of schedule. "The problem solving skills she should employ are: (a) mutual identification of the problem; (b) proposing rather than taking a fixed position; (c) free, open communications; and (d) starting with things in common" (Chancellor University, n.d., para. 23). Sonya has mutually identified the problem with Stanek, who has told her it was nothing to worry about but also wants her transferred back to headquarters. Sonya has sought information from others at Parker and externally, which led her to believe what was happening was unethical. Additionally, Sonya utilized free, open communications by confronting the V.P. of Investor Relations, Bridget Scona, and proposing her findings to Bridget. Bridget had informed Sonya to take plentiful notes, make copies of everything, and send them to her personal email account. She also advised Sonya to fly under the radar because she was going to be out for the next two weeks. Bridget also explained that the ethical committee was scheduled to meet the following month, at which time she would share the information with the members, and she advised Sonya to hire a lawyer.

While the discussion with Bridget Scona was productive, vertical communication at Parker Petroleum was weak. Free and open communication was not encouraged; making employees apprehensive to speak up on issues they thought were wrong. There was no communication from the president, nor was there any human resource policy in effect regarding the reporting of a white collar crime. There were two informal procedures known throughout the company: (a) create a blog spot on the internet, or (b) use an underground network. Blogging about this high profile issue should never be considered. Furthermore, no one had explained the underground network to the employees as it was an informal structure. In hindsight, perhaps Sonya could