Professional Ethics In Our Life

The main purpose of this paper is to determine the priorities of private relations and professional ethics in our life. There will be applied each of the Six Pillars of character and the ethical responsibility of accountants (as the case occurred in the accounting firm). One should take into account all delicate gradations of this tricky situation. Theoretically, there must be no contradictions between private life and work, but unfortunately, the real life makes us to choose  what is more important for us, at least at some moments of the daily living. Sometimes our decisions can radically change our life. There must be enough of flexibility to resolve such a situation, so that both the wolves can be fed and the sheep are alive.

In accordance with the subordination rule, the first person to be considered is Ed Giles, a certified public accountant (CPA) in the firm. Taking into account his position and experience, there is no doubt that he, like no other, knows the policy of the company concerning dating with the colleagues, and particularly, if they are of different ranks. He should have realized that he can not have a cake and eat it. He failed to obey to the basic principles of the company as a top-ranked specialist. He ignored such principles as trustworthiness and fairness, both to his first-hand colleagues and the whole company. But at first, he exposed to a risk Susan Regas’ and his own careers in the company. Apart from everything else, he is a man and must weigh all pros and contras before making a decision. Unfortunately, he just followed his emotions.

As to Susan Regas, we should keep in mind her age and the lack of experience. In addition, she is a young woman and that is why she is more emotional and feelings are at the first place for her. The principle “pleasure should be subordinate to duty” is not her keynote. Anyhow, all the abovementioned do not justify her as a worker. Distracting from her direct duties in favor of private life, considering all circumstances, is inadmissible. In its turn, everybody knows that women have a great influence over men in the sphere of close relationships. In this case, Susan behaved herself as a wise, adult woman and decided to stop their relations for some time. Actually, Ed should have made such a decision, but instead he was disappointed with Susan. Both Ed and Susan should make some timeout to think twice and thoroughly reconsider their relationships, how serious they are and what is the most important for them: further relations or a career.

Doubtless, Herb Morris intended to hold a very serious discussion with Ed Giles about the situation, taking into account, on the one hand, the reputation of the company, and on the other hand, considering Ed’s records. First, I think, Ed would try to dispel a doubt concerning his competency, trustworthiness and loyalty to the company. He understands that Morris highly appreciates him as a specialist. Keeping in mind that attack is the best form of defense, Ed would start first, making apologies for the current situation and then discussing his relationships with Susan. He has a great advantage because he talks with a man, and no one can understand a man, talking about women and relations with them, better than another man. Basing upon his heartfelt feelings to Susan, surely he would tell about it hoping for Morris comprehension. Ed should find the words that would make Morris convinced to give him another chance to resolve the situation. Ed should propose a compromise, so that both he and Susan could work in this company, but, if it is possible,  their duties or may be even departments would never be intersected, otherwise one or other of them should quit the job. It would be a balanced, argued and constructive proposal at the Ed’s hands, which would be suitable for Morris.

If I were Herb Morris, as any other sustainable chief, first of all, I would bend every effort to save such a highly professional employee as Ed Giles. I would intelligently discuss with Ed his relationships with Susan, trying to make certain, if they are serious enough. If so, I would assure him in my appreciation and favor. But after these words, I would focus his attention on the fact, that in the first place, I represent the interests of the company and that we should resolve this problem with benefits for both sides. For my part, I would promise him to do my best to provide conditions when he and Susan will have a minimum contact in working process, but for their part they are obliged to obey ethical responsibilities of accountants, particularly confidence, and their relationships must never throw a shadow on the company’s reputation. Should any disobedience appear, both of them will be fired immediately. If Susan decides to quit, I would promise to find a presentable place for her. Concerning the completion of the CAA Industries audit, I would retain the status quo, but upon condition, if they temporarily stop their relations until the audit is finished.    

So we have an interesting situation, when two people are dating and are happy together, this is the one side of the coin. The other side – their relationships contradict the claim of the company on dating and marriages between employees within the company, so they may be fired. Taking into account all the abovementioned, we can conclude that any problem has its decision. Ed as well as Susan is guilty in the situation. They should not have hidden their relations; they should have discussed it with their direct superior, what actually happened after an incident.   But another important fact is that the couple is faced with the problem what is more important for them, either their relationships or career. This is the best test for their feelings.