Ethics of Choosing a CEO

Ethics and Legal Environment The dilemma Garry faces first and foremost pertains to the public relations duties he possesses as CEO of the firm. He must consider how he frames Gabe's past actions to shareholders. Gabe was very young when he committed his past indiscretion and has paid his debt to society. People's negative views arise from their negative perceptions of criminals, not from the fact that Gabe has any legal issues he must resolve.

Even in a court of law, however, there would be in most estimations a number of mitigating circumstances regarding Gabe's actions, including his desire to pay his tuition as well as the fact that Skeeter egged him on into participating. Gabe would not have likely have participated in his illegal actions without Skeeter's instigation.

In this particular case the primary ethical norm at stake is one of justice or forgiveness when someone has paid his debt to society; Garry must keep this in mind when making his final decision (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne 2015: 8).

The initial desire to forgive Gabe is not simply a reflection of Garry's gut instinct: it is also reflective of a very specific view sociological of the law which suggests that the law should be responsive to human needs and the dynamic nature of the environment, versus adhering to a rigid set of norms (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne 2015: 19). Some critical (Marxist) legal theorists might point out a class-based argument for Gabe's indiscretion.

Gabe's poverty and struggles through school seem to be the main motivator in his decision to engage in robbery. Gabe was pursuing a degree at the time and was struggling between keeping his scholarship and working which made it very difficult to pursue his studies. The children of the wealthy do not need to make such a choice but rather are supported in their academic endeavors both financially and emotionally. They have less of an incentive to engage in illegal activities.

Gabe did not have anyone to turn to for financial advice or psychological support. As a result, he (some might say inevitably) engaged in criminal behavior (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne 2015: 20). Critical legal theorists stress that law is not a reflection of morality but rather of power interests. For example, someone who engaged in white collar crime such as transgressing the laws pertaining to buying and selling investments would very likely get a far lesser sentence than Gabe.

The problem which might arise is that Gabe is being asked to serve on the board of a firearms company. This could create a bad image for an already much-criticized industry, given that Gabe's crime took place with a firearm. Another issue is the question of disclosure. Gabe did not immediately disclose his previous criminal record to Garry when Garry made his initial decision and Gabe presumably should have had the knowledge that this might be a possible factor in Gerry's decision-making process.

As CEO Garry has a duty to the shareholders of the company to ensure that the company remains profitable. This means avoiding the consequences of negative public relations, even though he himself may believe that Gabe has put his past behind him. Even if on a personal, moral basis Garry believes that Gabe's past is irrelevant, he has legal obligations to uphold the integrity of the firm, both in terms of perceptions as well as reality.

This type of problem lends itself to what is often called Badaracco ethical analysis, or what is sometimes called a 'right vs. right' dilemma. In other words, there are potential rights on both sides of this ethical analysis. On one hand, there is the right which stresses the need to acknowledge someone's redemption and the fact that he has been able to improve his life after a bad start as an adolescent.

On the other hand, there is the rights which suggest that upholding the company's need for profitability is essential and listening to the voices of the interested parties such as shareholders is both necessary and ethical on the part of the CEO and selecting someone with a criminal background might not be the best choice for a firearms company. First and foremost, it must be asked what course of action will do the most good and perpetuate the least harms.

In this instance, the 'good' that would be achieved would be acknowledging Gabe's right to serve on the board and showing other former criminals that they could turn their lives around. Gabe has already had a job as head of a crisis center and selecting him as CEO would highlight his previous hard work and the good he has done. Furthermore, it would make a positive statement by the firearms company about the value it upheld.

On the other hand, this has generated a great deal of negative publicity for the company, which would cause harm to shareholders and employees. If people are not willing to accept Gabe and this is ignored, this could be seen as a violation of vital democratic principles. The alternative which serves Gabe's rights the best is clearly to allow him to serve in the position for which he was initially selected.

However, the decision which upholds shareholder's rights is one which acknowledges they have spoken, and there seems to be a substantial and vocal percentage that would prefer not to see Gabe in a position on the board of.