Jessie D. Chance
May 26, 2013
Professor Micki Pitcher
While studying this case, I noticed that whether Daniel Potter (Dan), who is engaged in an audit assignment, should do work as per the audit and ethical guidelines is the ethical dilemma in this case. These guidelines are issued by several accounting and auditing bodies and Dan takes them very seriously. There is also the question of whether he should ignore the codes and continue doing as is boss says. While working as a staff accountant for Baker Greenleaf he received is first important audit assignment (Brooks, 2007). In the assignment, Dan is required to work under his senior Oliver Freeman on a client’s subsidiary which is being shared with another Big Eight accounting firm. While working on this assignment, Dan was given a subordinate by the name of Gene whom was also Oliver’s assistant ( Brooks, 2007). The assistant Gene informed Dan that Oliver is a strict authoritarian and doesn’t like to be flexible. This to me is already a problem for Dan because he won’t be able to get him to budge or listen to his opinions. Dan has always ended up giving into Oliver and doing as he says. While working on the audit, Dan found material that was misleading and Oliver wanted him to ignore them. After a few arguments, Dan began questioning rather he should continue to be ethical or listen to his superior.
Being able to identify the stakeholders wasn’t such as easy task. However, the stakeholders in this case include Daniel Potter, Oliver Freeman, Baker Greenleaf, and the client’s management. Daniel wants to have a career where he doesn’t have to deal with professional misconduct. He is trying to perform his work with honesty and follow the highest quality standards. Looking at a Daniel, I noticed that he wants to maintain the reputation his employer has and securing a promotion for his near future with Baker Greenleaf. We then have Oliver Freeman, who is only interested...