Step 1: Determine the Facts
According to Menendez and his lawyers, the SEC was holding up its inquiry while the law firm was doing its work. The company summons Paquette to the downtown boardroom for an interview with additional lawyers from Halliburton present. The rest of the company members’ interviews is at their regular offices. He affirms, he agreed with Menendez’s interpretation of the rules. Paquette deposition comes back and appears altered; it now recants what he recalls saying demeaning his responses (Eisinger, 2015). Menendez only met the SEC once to file his initial complaint. The agency never had someone to review their documents, and James Rytting affirms that the SEC never interviewed Paquette. The internal investigation then clears Halliburton, who later is informed by the SEC that no enforcement action will come upon them. The then assistant director Jordan Thomas points out the dangers of the SEC not conducting its investigations. Later, Menendez tries to contact the SEC through Rytting, but they won’t listen to what he has to say.
Step 2: Identify the Ethical Issues Involved (from Tony Menendez’s perspective)
Tony goes through adverse action, which means ‘unfavourable personnel action,’ a term that discourages workers from engaging in protected activity. There is a breach of confidentiality by McCollum for informing on Tony, leaving him exposed to the adverse treatment and isolation from other employees. Menendez faces isolation from friends and employers after he is ousted for contacting the SEC. The company hangs him out to dry by cutting off his legal expenses. Menendez finds the company committed fraud on him by fabricating a memo of his meeting with McCollum, the vice president. McCollum perjures himself under oath stating he intended to deliver the memo to Menendez upon his return. Eventually, Halliburton wins the case over Tony despite the cover-up that they used in court citing unfair practice. The company employees then shunned him, and he was branded ‘a snitch.’
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Step 3: Identify All Stakeholders Affected
The stakeholders affected by the case of Menendez against Halliburton include; Tony and Ondy Menendez. Also, Menendez’s friend Paquette who came under the scrutiny of the independent agency. James Rytting who worked on the case of Tony for Hilder’s law firm also had an impact on the matter. Hilder Tony’s lawyer plays a significant role in representing Mendez in the battle but eventually drops him due to conflicting ideas for the way forward. Later, Tony hires a lawyer Joe Ahmad to represent him in the 2007 September court run. McCollum, Mendez’s boss, is involved in fabricating a memo that discredits Menendez’s performance.
1 st Analysis of Moral Philosophical Framework and Stakeholder Impact
Step 4: Analyze the issues within Halliburton’s culture and Tony Menendez’s dilemma from a ‘Utilitarian - Philosophical Framework’ perspective and present alternatives.
The Halliburton culture consists a people divided; no one is there for the other. The case of Menendez against Halliburton condemns his actions heavily for the right and appropriate thing he did. The human utilitarianism model specifies that in unjust situations, whereas one wins, the other ends up losing. In Tony’s case, the judge dismisses his claim stating that he had not been retaliated (Pirson, 2017). After two and half years of waiting with optimism, Menendez loses the case. This is very unjust seeing as the company produced a memo about a meeting that never happened. The alternative approach to deal with Tony’s dilemma would be to employ utilitarian ethical standards. The practical approach is all about balance; it strives to produce the greatest good with the least harm. It focuses primarily on consequences and implementing it is the best ethical approach for most people.
Step 5: Consider how this affected the Stakeholders
After the relentless actions of Menendez to pursue the case, the Halliburton states that executives mentioned Menendez’s name in the email that sealed his fate but not as an act of retaliation. Ondy Menendez says that this was meant to scare Tony and that even the “guys with degrees did not see it.’ The company uses Menendez’s refusal to back out of the case to ask for money to go against him. Even after Menendez’s first victory in three years, Halliburton still appeals to the court. As reimbursement for the retaliation against him, Tony garners 30,000 dollars, and his lawyers draw their payment from the company, one specifically asking for 200,000 dollars.
2 nd Analysis of Moral Philosophical Framework and Stakeholder Impact
Step 4: Analyze the issues within Halliburton’s culture and Tony Menendez’s dilemma from a ‘Virtue Ethics - Philosophical Framework’ perspective and present alternatives. What values did Tony Menendez display counterbalancing the company’s culture?
The actions of Halliburton’s executives on Tony’s case depict implausible deniability. The efforts of McCollum have a lasting impact on the well-being of Menendez. For nine long years, he goes toe to toe with Halliburton and eventually conquers. An alternative application would have taken the form: First, virtue should always be incorporated as excellence and is often an optimal point between extreme dysfunctions on a continuum of potential states. Second, empirical exploration of decency needs to account for character and context. Finally, the properties of organisation-level virtue need to be further specified and explored (Bright et al., 2014). Throughout the legal battles, tony displays values of patience, optimism, and due diligence.
Step 5: Consider how this affected the Stakeholders
The state laws assert that no public company may discharge, demote or suspend and threaten an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of actions they have taken (Michael, 2017). Halliburton learns this the hard way when Menendez finally wins his petition that their efforts were aimed at retaliating his contacting the SEC. Menendez parts with thirty thousand dollars and Halliburton is forced to pay his lawyers with fees amounting to more than 200,000 dollars. The fact that the SEC did not launch an official investigation on Halliburton made it look like his concerns were vague and lacking. After the discourse concerning Tony’s case, with him fighting for his livelihood, family and credibility, it is found that the company had indeed used actions of retaliation on him for raising concerns with the SEC.
Recommendations & Implementation
What steps would you take as CEO of Halliburton to promote a strong ethical culture and ethical behaviors? Back up your response with one of the theoretical frameworks from above.
As CEO of Halliburton, I would invest in a robust human resource department so that any employee can feel free to air their grievances without fear of considering a protected activity. Also, I would exercise team building activities to establish strong relationships between the employees and staff. Additionally, I would use the virtue-oriented framework to better the ethical behaviors of the employees. The best way to do this is by setting a visionary statement in which employees would ask themselves, what kind of person should I try to be and what will my actions show about my character? Ethical conduct will be whatever a virtuous person would do given challenging circumstances.
References
Bright S. Bradley A. Jason K. (2014) Reconsidering Virtue: Differences of Perspective in Virtue Ethics and the Positive Social Sciences Journal of Business Ethics 119: 445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1832-x
Eisinger Jesse. (2015). The Man Who Blew the Whistle on Halliburton.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/the-man-who-blew-the-whistle-on-halliburton/391215/
Michael Andreas Pirson (2017) Reconnecting Management Theory and Social Welfare: A Humanistic Perspective Academy of Management proceedings v ol. 2014, No. 1
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.11
