International Drilling Corporation
International Drilling Corporation Case Write-up
In the case study ”International Drilling Corporation”, Taylor described that the problem as many people either “didn’t know about what was going on” or “knew and just didn’t care.” Upon further inspection on the case, it was evident that many IDC executives were aware of company’s wrongdoings, but simply decided not to take any action. However, if I were Don Taylor, I would choose to report SEC. I believe this is the most ethical and logical decision that would bring the best results to the company as well as protect the investors; since many circumstantial situations suggest it would be impossible to bring changes to the company otherwise.
When the chance of getting caught for an unethical behavior is low, the perception of people’s wrongdoing is often minimized. It also appears that the IDC executives also tended to minimize ethical transgressions. In October 1971, Taylor witnessed the meeting concerning the firm’s violation of the securities law. However, the firm did not make a big deal out of it and considered it a “minor” and “technical” violation without making any corrective measures. This indicates that an act of clear legal and ethical violation can be justified by the company as long as it brings in greater profits. Influence of such corporate culture over the IDC’s unethical practices was even stronger and more direct after the December meeting with “brain trusts”. Even though they identified the company’s malpractices and a problem on reporting system, they still knowingly advocated to do nothing and discouraged Taylor from implementing the recommendation. In other words, IDC’s corporate culture also does not tolerate someone who has attempted to fix the company’s wrongdoings.
In the end, the choice Taylor must make was an extremely difficult one: to report the wrongdoings of his current employer or not. And in the process of making such a challenging decision, Taylor would arrive at the conclusion
In the case study ”International Drilling Corporation”, Taylor described that the problem as many people either “didn’t know about what was going on” or “knew and just didn’t care.” Upon further inspection on the case, it was evident that many IDC executives were aware of company’s wrongdoings, but simply decided not to take any action. However, if I were Don Taylor, I would choose to report SEC. I believe this is the most ethical and logical decision that would bring the best results to the company as well as protect the investors; since many circumstantial situations suggest it would be impossible to bring changes to the company otherwise.
When the chance of getting caught for an unethical behavior is low, the perception of people’s wrongdoing is often minimized. It also appears that the IDC executives also tended to minimize ethical transgressions. In October 1971, Taylor witnessed the meeting concerning the firm’s violation of the securities law. However, the firm did not make a big deal out of it and considered it a “minor” and “technical” violation without making any corrective measures. This indicates that an act of clear legal and ethical violation can be justified by the company as long as it brings in greater profits. Influence of such corporate culture over the IDC’s unethical practices was even stronger and more direct after the December meeting with “brain trusts”. Even though they identified the company’s malpractices and a problem on reporting system, they still knowingly advocated to do nothing and discouraged Taylor from implementing the recommendation. In other words, IDC’s corporate culture also does not tolerate someone who has attempted to fix the company’s wrongdoings.
In the end, the choice Taylor must make was an extremely difficult one: to report the wrongdoings of his current employer or not. And in the process of making such a challenging decision, Taylor would arrive at the conclusion