This paper examines the organizational and ethical failures that enabled the Enron scandal, focusing on three interconnected factors: the company's dysfunctional management conflict process, its toxic corporate culture, and the concentration and misuse of power within its hierarchy. Drawing on Cohan (2002) and contemporary reporting, the paper argues that Enron's collapse was not an isolated incident but the predictable result of systemic conditions — information blockage, fear-based employee behavior, and a board cut off from operational reality — that can emerge in any organization. The analysis concludes with observations about how effective conflict management and transparent communication could have mitigated these failures.
Many people questioned what happened at Enron — "How could this happen?" they asked. It is important for individuals to recognize that the same thing could have happened, has happened, and will probably happen again at many companies. There are certain conditions that exist within organizations that lead to negative outcomes, no matter how well-intentioned the employees may be.
Enron had a very loose management conflict process. According to Cohan (2002), "Enron is widely reputed to have had a 'go-go' culture, in which senior officials cast aside traditional business controls. The corporate culture was such that top officers were unaware of financial details, and cast a relaxed attitude about conflicts of interest of executives." In other words, the senior management team did not feel compelled or motivated to stay informed about what was happening at the top. In addition, the culture stressed "information blockage," with "corporate officers receiving information from multiple, and sometimes conflicting, sources, that may well undergo distortion in transmission. With Enron, the 'lies' came in a variety of forms."
Furthermore, individuals knew they could easily lose their jobs if they disagreed. As noted by Schwartz, Jeff Skilling was described as "marching through with his eyes straight ahead, his body language radiating importance and urgency and making clear that few should dare to take a moment of his time." Over time, employees learned that when they came to complain about perceived unfairness in the company's compensation system, they would be rebuffed; they were warned that if they whined, they would not succeed. Many faced the challenge of reconciling the desire to be good with the desire to be successful. According to Schwartz's New York Times article, mismanaging the conflict process came from the top. Skilling was criticized in the report on Enron because he "certainly knew or should have known of the magnitude and the risks associated with these transactions." He "bears substantial responsibility for the failure of the system of internal controls" in reducing partnership risks.
In a company with an effective management conflict process, senior managers are fully involved in conflict identification and management. They take a thorough view of conflict risk and mitigation across the full range of business activities within their areas of responsibility. They set and follow precise guidelines that delineate which types of products and services generate conflicts of interest that can and cannot be adequately managed. They must also receive accurate information about the degree and mitigation of conflicts of interest in their areas so they can effectively oversee their business. The Enron scandal is widely studied as a case in which each of these safeguards was absent.
The management conflict process — or lack thereof — at Enron was closely tied to the company's power relationships. In an effectively functioning organization, according to sociologist Robert Jackall (as cited in Cohan, 2002), power is concentrated at the top in the person of the chief executive officer and is simultaneously decentralized; that is, responsibility for decisions and profits is pushed as far down the organizational line as possible. At Enron, however, information neither flowed down the hierarchy nor up it. It did not reach the management team or the board of directors. As Cohan (2002) observes, "The board of Enron appears to be analogous to the seventeenth-century monarch — holding absolute power in theory, but cut off from access to information and thereby manipulated by the ministers who are its nominal servants."
This hierarchical structure prevented personnel from obtaining the complete understanding required to make informed moral decisions, and from knowing what role they actually played in the totality of the corporate strategy. The consequences of such information asymmetry extended to every level of the organization.
"Shared negativism and labeling of dissenters"
"Survival instincts and deference to strong leaders"
Unfortunately, it was recognized far too late that Enron epitomized omnipotent control. Despite the fact that innovation and creativity were encouraged, the underlying structure was a competitive culture driven by breakdowns in internal communication, deception, fraud, and personal arrogance. Enron's collapse stands as a lasting reminder that without transparent communication, genuine accountability, and a functioning conflict management process, even large and celebrated organizations can deteriorate from within.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.