Accounting Ethics the Harmless or Not-So-Harmless Lies

Accounting Ethics

The harmless or not-so-harmless lies of Bobby Glick

From a strictly utilitarian perspective, it might be that the scenario outlined in the Glick case does not seem so morally questionable. Glick, as a new and untested employee right out of college, was naturally apprehensive about how his competency would be viewed. He studied, successfully passed his CPA exam, and acquitted himself admirably 'on the job.' No one was harmed by his concealment: indeed, his firm benefited from having a highly competent employee concerned about his reputation working for them.

However, viewing professional ethics from a purely utilitarian perspective is extremely problematic. Professional ethics by its nature assumes certain 'standards' which professionals must uphold, even if the consequences are not bad -- in fact, even if the consequences of the unethical action are 'good' (Driver 2009). For example, someone with no CPA license could lie, get employment with a CPA firm, and do a wonderful job for 10 years. This would still be wrong and unethical, according to the standards of the profession, because when someone pays for the services of a CPA, the person should get the services of a CPA. Even if people benefited from the work of the fake CPA, his actions would still be wrong.

In contrast, utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) holds: "Consequences -- and only consequences -- can conceivably justify any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more beneficial to others" (Alexander & Moore 2012: 1). From a consequentialist perspective, Glick's or any subterfuge is not wrong, so long as the outcome is good. In this case, the only harm was the hurt feelings of Glick's employer, while the 'good' of Glick passing the test and giving high-quality service far exceeded any negative results.

From a deontological ethical perspective, however, lying is wrong, no matter what the consequences (Alexander & Moore 2012). Even if no harm was done, Glick not only concealed the fact he had taken the exam, he also lied. If he had not passed, it is likely he would have continued to lie and create the impression he had been a 'first timer' even though he was not. This also suggests to the firm that he would have not disclosed relevant information to the firm (his failure to pass the first time).

Glick would counter that not being a 'first timer' was more of a point of personal pride, and that not being a 'first timer' does not mean that a CPA is incompetent. In fact, it is more common not to pass all sections of the test than it is to pass. He was, in effect, more competent than he was presumed to be when working for the firm, since he had already passed and the firm members believed he had not passed. Clients received more rather than less experienced and competent attention than they believed they were getting, as Glick was attending to them with all of the knowledge of someone who had studied for and passed the exam.

From a virtue ethics standpoint however, Glick was in error because his actions reveal a questionable ethical character. It is likely on this grounds that he is being dismissed. It is assumed that someone who lies about his exam will lie about other things. Particularly since Glick wants to investigate fraud as part of his future career, his willingness to put his own professional image above honesty is troubling in the eyes of the firm's partners. Virtue ethics is the idea that virtue is "something that makes its possessor good: a virtuous person is a morally good, excellent or admirable person who acts and feels well, rightly, as she should" (Hursthouse 2012: 2). Good deeds naturally spring forth from a 'good' person.

However, there are a number of mitigating factors to viewing Glick's actions as morally bankrupt. First of all, Glick is young and relatively new to the profession. His sense of character and professional ethics is still being formed. Rather than dismissing him, Pirelli could have used the experience as a 'teachable moment' and said: "you can always be honest with me; you do high-quality work and I would not have thought less of you had you not passed during the first try -- indeed, I would have thought more of you, had you been honest."