加拿大代写被抓：金融行业的道德挑战
安然(Enron)等公司在金融业的道德违规行为一直很严重，因为它们充分分散了各自机构的运营和财务控制。因此，本组织中似乎很少有人有完整的情况，与本组织有关的其他大多数人都被蒙在鼓里。在安然的案例中，其他的利益相关者包括员工、投资者等。他们被蒙在暗中，以适应某些特定的利益相关者，如公司首席执行官、管理层和董事会。在组织中，运营和财务控制的透明度是必要的，员工需要知道他们可以做什么和不可以做什么，但如果这些信息没有被共享，就会导致他们陷入利益冲突(Flood, 2003;福勒,2002)。
加拿大代写被抓：金融行业的道德挑战
与公司要求相冲突的职业职责:此外，伦理利益冲突在这里没有得到空间或考虑，这一点在评估中使用的一些排名程序中很明显。举个例子，想想在安然，薪酬是如何基于员工的同行评价来针对他们的，管理层是如何在不分析其他因素的情况下把员工拉到最低层次的，或者他们在安然的工作年限。事实上，这种排名方式会导致完成不道德的评估，就像在同行评估中一样，人们通常会给其他人最低的排名，以确保他们排名高。员工们发现，为了保住工作，他们会攻击与自己共事的同事。同行评议并不是诚实的复苏，但更多的是发现对同事的抱怨，员工不得不这样做，即使他们不想这样做。虽然这提高了他们在公司的地位，但这既违背了功利主义，也违背了义务论。在功利主义看来，一个人的行为是对是错取决于行为对人的影响。它是一种伦理哲学，把社会上大多数人的幸福放在第一位。更大的善对大多数人的影响是指导一个人的行为(Moore, 2014)。这样做的行为在道德上是有益的，而当一种行为不能保证对大多数人都有更大的好处时，它就可能在道德上是错误的。现在在功利主义的案例中，就像安然公司的财务人员的绩效评估一样，它被打破了。员工们并不担心他们大多数人有什么好东西，他们只担心自己。如果他们能保住工作，他们会选择低估同龄人。对彼此的适当评价可能会导致一种伦理评价体系。然而，由于员工已经陷入了公司的伦理问题体系，这也使得员工很难以一种伦理的方式来处理这个问题(Silverstein, 2013)。
加拿大代写被抓：金融行业的道德挑战
The ethics breach was kept strong in financial industry by companies like Enron because how they had sufficiently decentralized the operational and financial controls of their organizations. Few people in the organization hence seemed to have the complete picture, and most of the others involved with the organization were kept in the dark. In the case of Enron, the others involved stakeholders like employees, the investors etc. They were kept in the dark to suit some specific set of stakeholders such as the company CEO’s, the management and board of directors. Operational and financial control transparency is needed in organization for employees to be aware of what they could do and what not, but where this information was not shared, it leads them into conflicts of interest (Flood, 2003; Fowler, 2002).
加拿大代写被抓：金融行业的道德挑战
Professional Duty Conflicting with Company Demands: Furthermore, ethical conflicts of interest were not given a space or consideration here, as evident in some of the ranking procedures used in appraisals. As an example, consider how in Enron, compensation was targeted at employees based on their peer evaluations, and how the management just pulled out the employees on the lowest rung without analysing other elements of their performance, or their work years with Enron. In fact, this form of a ranking performance led to complete unethical appraisals, as in peer assessments, people used to give others the lowest rank possible to make sure they were ranked high. Employees found themselves attacking the same employees that they work with as peers to keep their jobs. The peer review was not honest revives, but was more of finding complaints about co-workers and employees had to do it even when they did not want to. While this enhanced their own positions in the company, this goes against both utilitarianism and deontology. Now per utilitarianism, actions of a person are right or wrong based on the effects the action has on people. It is an ethical philosophy where the happiness of the greatest number of people in society will be considered first. The effect of greater good on the greatest number of people was to guide the action of a person (Moore, 2014). An action that does this will be morally good and when an action does not ensure greater good to the greatest number of people, then it can be morally wrong. Now in the case of utilitarianism, as applied in the performance appraisals of the financial workers in Enron, it is breached. The employees did not worry about most them having something good, and they were only worried about themselves. They made choice to under evaluate their peers if they could keep their jobs. Proper evaluation of each other could have led to an ethical appraisal system. However, since the employees were already caught up in a system of ethical issues in the company, it also made it difficult for the employees to approach the issue in an ethical way (Silverstein, 2013).
