Introduction
In relation to the Yonkers case study on the point that is apparent is that ethical dilemmas often arise due to conflicting responsibility (Cooper, 2012). This is the issue that causes a supposed conflict of interest, given that Mr. Cousens is the president of the Education Board and also an advisor to the board. While acting as Board President, Mr. Cousens is an individual who has the right to use the services of firms such as H&S.
It is important, however, to note that in some cases, self-interest and responsibility toward the organization are synonymous (Davis & Stark, 2001). In this case, it would appear this is the case as submission of a resume is normal for anyone seeking career improvement. Based on such situations, it is required that a high standard of proof is required to demonstrate a clear conflict of interest (Davis & Stark, 2001). It is based on this position that this paper supports the statement that there was no conflict of interest in Mr. Cousen’s dealings with H&S.
Discussion
In relation to the case, it has been observed that the primary mechanism used to ensure order and efficiency in an emerging market is transparency. The application of transparency in an organization is critical to corporate social responsibility (Ihlen, Bartlett & May 2011). Transparency can be defined as the degree to which information is available to outsiders that enables them to possess adequate information to aid in decision making and assessing decisions by the organization. Transparency thus operates as a security device to reduce risk and promote a stable environment within the organization.
According to Turner, one appropriate approach to ensure that transparency is maintained within an organization is the application of disclosure rules (Turner, 2009). These rules though commonly used in the management of financial institutions, can also be used in managing other organizations. Such rules contain guidelines on information to disclose and the related circumstances (Turner, 2009). In relation to positions such as that held by Mr. Cousen, it may be prudent in the future to have instructions demanding disclosure of actions that may affect decision-making capacity to the board.
Just as in financial institutions and markets, the use of strong disclosure regimes within organizations can boost confidence in the management of organizations (Du Plessis, Bagaric & Hargovan, 2011). For this reason, the consideration of appropriate disclosure mechanisms is a wise decision for any organization. However, at the same time, it has been suggested that disclosure regimes should not place unrealistic pressure on the individuals involved (Du Plessis, Bagaric & Hargovan, 2011). This is because if there is excessive pressure in relation to disclosure, it is likely that there will be excessive suspicion and, as a result, loss of interest in the position.
In addition to disclosing the information, Mr. Cousens’s behavior suggests a reasonable action aimed at completing one’s duty with integrity or impartiality. This kind of behavior is very crucial in cases of conflict of interest where the avoidance of impropriety plays a major role (Moliterno, 2006). This is because though the question of impropriety is quite straightforward, the question of appearance is one that is fairly difficult to address (Lewis & Gilman, 2005).
The issue of appearance is open to debate given that any action can be wrongly perceived. This position suggests that appearance alone is inadequate as a measure of impropriety given that it leaves room for excessive examination (Lewis & Gilman, 2005). For this reason, appearance of impropriety can be defined as when an official appears to do something wrong, or when the official does something that looks wrong (Lewis & Gilman, 2005). Given the disclosure by Mr. Cousens it becomes impossible to suggest the appearance of impropriety in relation to his decision.
References
Cooper, T. (2012). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to ethics for the Administrative Role. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Davis, M., & Stark, A. (2001). Conflict of Interest in the Professions. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Du Plessis, J., Bagaric, M., & Hargovan, A. (2011). Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (2011). The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lewis, C., & Gilman, S. (2005). The Ethics Challenge in Public Service: A Problem Solving Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moliterno, J. (2006). Professional Responsibility: New York: Aspen Publishers Inc.
Turner, C. (2009). Corporate Governance: A Practical guide for Accountants. Burlington, MA: CIMA Publishing.