Besides the inhibiting and enabling arguments from Mark himself, there is also some inhibiting and enabling arguments from other stakeholders who may involved in this case. Inhibiting arguments:
Risk of job for other employee in the company. By exposing the issues in the company, Mike is not the only guy who may be kicked out of the company, the accounting staff member who informed Mike about the manipulating annual financial statement and bribe thing is also be in trouble. Even worse, the CEO may consider taking action on other employee who he thinks the person knows the issues without prove it. Reaction of the principle company. How the management of Principle Company is going to react to the issues if Mike reports it to them? Will the principle company question or take action on CEO? What can I do if the principle company keeps silence about these issues? All these questions will stop Mike to speak out about these issues. It is better for Mike to keep silent than betting on the reaction of Principle Company. Furthermore, even the principle company take these issues seriously, the management probably want solve these issues stealthily within the company to avoid losing the reputation of the company. Fear of opening Pandora’s Box. Pandora’s Box (Drumwright and Murphy, 2004) is the never ending stream of other challenges which is caused by Mike due to speak out the issues. If these issues spread outside the company to the public, the company is not the only party will be concerned with these issues, but also the competitors in the industry; the Capital Market Supervisory Board, even the Capital Market as whole. Other competitors may be questioned about the legality and validity of the business as same as the company; the Capital Market Supervisory Board will be questioned about the fairness of supervising the market. Consequently, it is not only the company itself going to lose the reputation and creditability, but also the competitors and the entire capital...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document