Buy term paper: Business Ethics, Informational Privacy

Today, the protection of private information is vitally important for business development, whereas information breaches undermine the organizational performance and the public image of a company that fails to protect its clients as well as its own databases from information breaches. In such a context, companies should stimulate efforts of employees to protect information and to investigate cases of information breaches. However, sometimes companies take paradoxical decisions as was the case of Patricia Dunn, who had lost her job, while attempting to investigate the case of information breaches in HP and to find out the source and cause of the information breaches. Her investigation ended up in her resigning from HP, which seems to be the absolutely unjust outcome and the totally wrong decision being taken by HP. In fact, Patricia Dunn attempted to investigate the case of information breaches in HP that could help to protect further cases of information breaches from the company. Therefore, Patricia Dunn should not be forced to resign.
At any rate, Patricia Dunn’s resigning should be her own choice. At this point, it is important to dwell upon the justification of the decision to make her resign. As the matter of fact, the decision being taken by HP was probably driven by concerns of the company with its public image. Obviously, the investigation revealing consistent information breaches and easiness of information breaches in HP would undermine the confidence of clients and business partners in the company. Therefore, the company decided to make Patricia Dunn to resign to save its public image and to stop the possible conflict that could have outburst within the company, if Patricia Dunn carried on her investigation. On the other hand, the decision to make her resign was absolutely fair. She attempted to improve the internal business processes within the company and to secure information flow within the company but, in reward, she had to resign. The situation was apparently paradoxical because her resigning had never solved the problem of information breaches in HP but, what was more likely, this decision had aggravated the situation within the company in regard to information security.
Obviously, HP underestimated what Patricia Dunn had done for the company. She conducted the internal investigation within HP. The internal investigation was extremely important, if not to say essential, taking into consideration the fact of ongoing information breaches the company suffered from. In such a context, the decision taken by Patricia Dunn was absolutely correct, although she could inform the board about her decision. On the other hand, in such a case, the effectiveness of the investigation could be under a question, because Patricia Dunn was uncertain in the information security within the company. Hence, she could not spread the information about the investigation because she would make the entire investigation useless. What is meant here is the fact that, if she attempted to inform the board about her investigation, she would face a risk of information breach. Therefore, the information about the investigation could become available to an individual or individuals responsible for information breaches in HP. Being warned this individual or these individuals could secure their position or positions for the time of investigation. Consequently, from the point of view of the company’s information security, Patricia Dunn’s actions were right.
Furthermore, her investigation revealed weaknesses of HP and its information system. In this regard, the contribution of Patricia Dunn in the security of information system of HP can hardly be underestimated. As the matter of fact, she helped the company to reveal its weakness and vulnerability of its information system to breaches. Patricia Dunn proved that a potential offender did not need to make much sophisticated efforts to get access to private information and information that the company wanted to secure. Therefore, Patricia Dunn indicated to the problem the company had to tackle. In stark contrast, the company had taken a paradoxical decision to make her resign, instead of tackling the identified problem. HP should not force Patricia Dunn to resign. Instead, the company should use the information she revealed to put the end to information breaches. To put it more precisely, Patricia Dunn helped the company to understand the cause of the problem. Therefore, the company should eliminate the cause of the problem to solve it successfully. However, HP did not solve the problem but made Patricia Dunn to resign instead. In the contemporary business environment, revelation of problems and their causes is the key toward the successful solution of problems, which slow down business development and prevent the company from marketing success. However, this is not the case of HP, which prefers to make professionals, who attempt to solve problems, resign, instead of supporting and encouraging them.
At this point, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the investigation could prevent further information breaches. Obviously, HP could improve its information system to make it more complicated to access the information, which the company attempted to secure. The investigation launched by Patricia Dunn helped to understand the mechanism of information breaches and the company just needed to block it to stop further information breaches. On ignoring this problem, the company could provoke the ongoing deterioration of information security in HP because the company stopped the investigation of Patricia Dunn, who was forced to resign, whereas information breaches carried on and HP had done next to nothing in this regard.
Furthermore, the HP should take into consideration long-lasting effects of the decision to make Patricia Dunn to resign. It proves beyond a doubt that, if Patricia Dunn was forced to resign, other employees would be discouraged to investigate or prevent cases of information breaches. In fact, Patricia Dunn became the model of the loyal behavior in regard to the company and security of its information system. Her initiative to start investigation was grounded on her intention to help the company and to solve the problem of information breaches (Andrew, 2007). At this point, it should be said that information breaches were a strategic threat to HP because the company operating in the hi-tech industry should protect its information, which is the major value of the company.
Therefore, HP should not force Patricia Dunn to resign. However, such a decision was taken and Patricia Dunn did not become a model of positive, loyal behavior to other employees. In stark contrast, other employees had learned her lesson. What is meant here is the fact that employees understood that starting an investigation within the company was punishable. They would not receive rewards, recognition or promotion for their investigations. In stark contrast, they would follow Patricia Dunn and they would force to resign because of their investigations (Dhillon, 2007). In this regard, results of the investigation were absolutely irrelevant and they did not save Patricia Dunn nor would save other employees, if they decided to launch the investigation.
In such a way, HP discouraged its employees making Patricia Dunn to resign. In all probability, employees would be motivated to focus on the information security of the company, if Patricia Dunn was not forced to resign but got a promotion, for instance. The company could motivate its employees to be more careful in relation to information security, if it did not force Patricia Dunn to resign, but HP preferred to make her resign and ignore the problem she had revealed.
Thus, it proves beyond a doubt that Patricia Dunn should preserve her position, at the least. Anyway, she should not be forced to resign. The decision of HP to make her resign was wrong because she made a considerable contribution to the revelation of causes of the problem of information breaches in HP. The company could use results of her investigation to improve its information system that is worth rewarding Patricia Dunn but not making her resign. In addition, when the company forced Patricia Dunn to resign, HP discouraged other employees to pay attention to the risk of information breaches and investigate these cases. Obviously, such a position of the company deteriorates its performance and organizational culture.

No Comments Yet.

Leave a comment