Lynn Brewer, Enron's Ethics, and the Whistleblower Dilemma
This paper examines Lynn Brewer's firsthand account of corruption at Enron, as described in her book House of Cards, exploring the company's fraudulent practices, including bank fraud, power price manipulation, and financial misstatement. It analyzes Enron's internal "rank and yank" performance review system and how it coerced employees into complicity with unethical behavior. Drawing on Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the paper considers why ordinary employees failed to resist organizational wrongdoing. The author reflects personally on how they might have responded in a similar situation, then questions the credibility of Brewer herself in light of subsequent reporting. The paper concludes by asking whether corporate America meaningfully changed after the Enron scandal or whether ethical lapses have simply become normalized.
- Lynn Brewer and the Enron Corruption Exposed: Brewer witnesses fraud; whistles go unanswered
- The 'Rank and Yank' Performance Review System: PRC forced curve punished ethical employees
- Why Employees Go Along: Psychology and Basic Needs: Maslow's needs explain compliance with wrongdoing
- Personal Reflection on Whistleblowing: Author questions own courage to speak up
- Has Corporate Ethics Changed Since Enron?: Scandals fade; ethics reform remains superficial
- Questioning the Whistleblower's Own Credibility: Brewer's own honesty and motives disputed
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves through multiple analytical layers — from institutional wrongdoing, to psychological explanation, to personal reflection, to a credibility twist — keeping the argument from feeling one-dimensional.
- The use of Maslow's hierarchy of needs gives the discussion a theoretical anchor without becoming overly academic, making the paper accessible and grounded.
- The final reversal — questioning Brewer's own integrity after building her up as a whistleblower — is intellectually honest and adds genuine critical depth.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates critical reflexivity: the author does not simply describe events but openly interrogates their own likely behavior ("I do not know how I would have reacted"), applies a theoretical framework (Maslow), and then turns skepticism on the very source they have been analyzing. This layered questioning is a hallmark of thoughtful analytical writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with Brewer's account and Enron's public-versus-private ethical face, then unpacks the PRC "rank and yank" system in detail. It pivots to behavioral psychology via Maslow to explain employee complicity, followed by a candid personal reflection paragraph. Two closing sections assess whether corporate culture changed post-Enron and then complicate the whole narrative by casting doubt on Brewer's credibility, ending on a broader cultural indictment.
Lynn Brewer and the Enron Corruption Exposed
Lynn Brewer was employed in risk management in energy operations, the e-commerce initiative for Enron's water subsidiary, and competitive intelligence for Enron Broadband Services when she began seeing the ugly writing on the wall. She witnessed several situations of illegal and corrupt dealings, including bank fraud, espionage, power price manipulation, and gross misstatements to the media, the public, and the financial world. Her story about the corruption at Enron, told in House of Cards, was disconcerting to read — though it read more like a TV movie of the week — yet it was not altogether surprising. Since the beginning of time, and surely the beginning of big business, unethical businesspeople have done all they could for number one: themselves.
More upsetting, however, is the fact that whistleblowers' warnings often fall on deaf ears — on those who do not want to hear, either because they do not want to get personally involved in such a mess or because they, too, have something to lose by rocking the boat. Brewer claimed to have contacted both company-related organizations, such as the employee assistance program, and external high-level contacts, such as senators, without receiving any response.
The 'Rank and Yank' Performance Review System
Even more troubling is how the company got its employees to play along with its unethical standards through its performance review program. Like many companies, Enron's external face to the public and its internal face to its employees were two very different things. To the public, it presented itself as an ethical company with integrity as a high-priority goal. At the same time, however, it built an entirely opposite management model for its own people. Informally called "rank and yank" and instituted by its Performance Review Committee (PRC), this model emphasized ignoring supposedly tight controls.
The PRC applied a forced bell curve made up of approximately 5% of employees at the top rung, with 40% spread outward into the next two groups. These three groups were considered the primary bonus groups. In addition, roughly 30% of employees fell in the middle, and two groups toward the bottom saw at least 8% of them "yanked" — shown the front door for poor performance. In the meantime, those individuals with control responsibilities quickly realized that if they did not assist in commercial deal-making and attain financial goals by endorsing questionable deals, they would be considered persona non grata with the PRC.
Based on what it told the public, Enron should have ensured that control professionals who raised the most complaints received the greatest rewards for doing their jobs and flagging shaky deals. The opposite happened, and soon whatever controls were in place fell away entirely. Meanwhile, dealmakers had to aggressively chase additional clients or face persecution by the PRC.
Why Employees Go Along: Psychology and Basic Needs
Humans as a whole do not like to go against the tide. When they see others doing something — especially when those others are being rewarded for it — it is not difficult to get them to go along with the crowd. People also want to be accepted and do not want to be known as complainers or as different from the norm. They want to be liked, which again means they will more than likely follow others even when the path is rocky.
Furthermore, based on Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, humans have certain fundamental drives. The first is survival — having the money to eat and keep a roof over one's head — and the second is security, meaning not losing one's job. It therefore takes a great deal for the average person to buck the system. This dynamic was clearly visible at Enron and has been seen at many other companies. People tell themselves that everyone else does it and gets away with it, so how wrong can it really be? It comes down to economics versus ethics.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.