The purpose of the  International Widgets’ Code of Ethics is to reaffirm the corporation’s reason for existence. It also shows how committed the corporation is, in ensuring that it meets high standards both legally and ethically when dealing with its clients. The International Widgets expects the employees to display the highest level of integrity, honesty, and hard work that is accompanied by high-performance levels. Working in a way that promotes the growth of the corporation shows that the employees are acting in the best interests of John Anderson are quite disappointing as he has drastically stopped performing and, he is now an expense to the corporation. His recent actions are not ethical because his performance does not conform to the code of ethics put in place by the corporation and he seems to fail in ultimately representing the corporation to the clients. As such, the clients introduced by John seem to have preferred the services of the competitors to those of the International Widgets, which further breaks the code of ethics of the corporation.

The International Widgets’ Code of Ethics is well detailed, and it perfectly serves it purposes in the organization. Subsequently, this code of ration that there are certain actions that are acceptable to the corporation as well as others that are cannot be tolerated. It covers ethical codes associated with the business, codes that define the behavior to be shown by employees as well as a code on how operations of the business are to be carried out professionallyof conflict of interest, the corporation’s personnel is expected to undertake any action that exclusively benefits the corporation as they are part of the reasons for its extemporary performance. Under this code also, it is clearly stated that no employees should engage in any transaction with a direct competitor that do not benefit the International Widgets Corporation in any way. If any are to be provided to a direct competitor by a certain employee, then it should be with the consent of the company’s management (Ferrell, and Fraedrich, 2014). Additionally, the service should not compromise the International Widgets Corporation in any way. Therefore, John’s behavior is prohibited under this code.

An organization’s code of ethics is quite distinct from the moral codes that are stipulated in the educational, cultural, and religious setups of a society. Additionally, some actions undertaken by certain individuals in an organization that are against the set code of ethics are mostly punishable by law (Cheeseman, 2014). Some governmental agencies also have the authority to withdraw the professional certification attained by individuals found to lack professional integrity. Every member of the corporation has to abide by the letter and spirit of the code of ethics set by the corporation and is thus liable for their misconduct. The code of ethics is some kind of a professional contract that proves that an individual agreed to the obligations and breaching the contract exposes one to being sued in a court of law. The competitor firm also seems to have undermined the concept of fairness in trade practice, making it guilty. Through informal negotiations that can be confirmed in writing, the issue of conflict of interest can be resolved as the parties reach a satisfactory conclusion without any formal mediation. Nonetheless, mediation or arbitration could be used, as it is quicker than using courts, where a third independent party is brought in to lead the negotiations and reach a conclusion that favors both parties. The decisions made by the arbitrator can be enforced in a binding legal process when necessary. In case these two processes fail, the corporation could decide to take the matter to court after careful considerations based on the costs, time, and damage that could result.

The International Widgets’ Code of Ethics as well as the aspect of working as an employee in the corporation binds John in a legal or ethical relationship of trust. As such, John is in a fiduciary relationship with the corporation. In this relationship, John acts as an agent while International Widgets becomes the principal because he acts on behalf of the corporation with trust being the foundation of this relationship. As an agent, John was obligated to act under the control of his employer. He had to perform his duties within the scope of power delegated to him by the International Widgets Corporation, and ensure diligence and reasonable skill in what he is doing. He also had a duty of not acting in accordance with the employer’s requirements and not on his account or make any profits out of his employer’s company (Schenone, 2013). However, John does not effectively fulfill his duties as an agent because he ends up making decisions that serve his interests rather than acting under the control of his employer. More also, he does not show any diligence in his professionalism and breaks the agent-principal trust created between him and his employer.

As much as John’s actions were illegal, he acted out of lack of knowledge about the seriousness of the issue and, therefore, some level of mercy should be shown to him. Taking a legal action against him would affect his children as well because he does not have sufficient money to take care of the charges that could be imposed by the court and the children. Moreover, he is still interested in working for the corporation and serves his employer better. As such, Gloria should spare John and allow him to continue working for the company but at a closer supervision. On the other hand, John will try to utilize this second chance by working diligently to prove his gratitude, thus promoting the performance of the corporation.

References

Cheeseman, H. R. (2014). Contemporary business law. (8th ed.). Los Angeles, California: Pearson Education.

Schenone, S. (2013). Duties and Responsibilities of Directors and Company Secretaries in New Zealand (4th ed.). CCH New Zealand Limited.

Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2014). Business Ethics: Ethical decision-making & cases. Cengage learning.

Kovacich, G. L., & Halibozek, E. P. (2002). The manager’s handbook for corporate security: Establishing and managing a successful assets protection program. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.