The High Turnover Rate Of Leadership

During the year 2000, Enron was exceeding all expectations, its stock was through the roof, and the company seemed to be on top of the world. The next year Enron declared bankruptcy. So how did a company rise and fall so quickly? The key in analysing this question lies in Enron’s organizational culture, which is defined as “a shared meaning held by members distinguishing an organization” (Robbins and Judge, Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 269). During its prime, Enron appeared to be a successful and innovative company, but in reality was a company rooted in an organizational culture of corruption and greed. The five culture dimensions of stability, risk taking and innovation, attention to detail, outcome orientation, and aggressiveness are key to understanding how unethical behavior became such a problem at Enron.

The story of Enron is truly remarkable. As a company it merely controlled the electricity, natural gas and communications sectors of the world. It reported (key word, reported) revenues over one hundred billion US dollars and was presented America’s Most Innovative Company by Fortune magazine for six sequential years. But, with power comes greed and Enron from its inception employed people who set their eyes upon money, prestige, power or a combination of the three. The gluttony took over sectors which the company could not operate proficiently nor successfully.

The fall of the colossal entity called Enron has forever changed the level of trust that the American public holds for large corporations. The wake of devastation caused by this and other recent corporate financial scandals has brought about a web of new reforms and regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was signed into law on July 30th, 2002. We are forced to ask ourselves if it will happen again. This essay will examine the collapse of Enron and detail the main causes behind this embarrassing stain of American history.

Enron’s fraudulent financial practices lead to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Mistakes made by the company and their leadership shocked the world and cost billions. Enron’s leadership could have taken steps to prevent or mitigate the repercussions of their actions. The act restored ethical and reliable financial practices to the market.The major provisions of the act made corporations responsibility for financial reports, and required internal and external audits. The Act changed the accounting regulatory environment. And although corporations incurred the additional expense of audit and new reporting standards, these changes restored consumer investing confidence, strengthening the corporations and the stock market overall. (Flanigan, 2002.)

The top managers operated in a corrupted fashion They did not even try to produce a positive symbolic management within the organization. Thus, the failure of the company was also the reflection of their moral failing. As a matter of fact, not only there was an aggressive and arrogant culture, but managers were mainly driven by corruption, and greed. They had no space for ethics; their main goal was trading for financial gains. Managers at Enron did not focus on long term goals. Moreover, they did not take care of their shareholders. Executives had neither an open relationship nor a shared vision with their employees. Instead, they were only interested in enriching themselves; according to their philosophy any situation could bring profits, even though this might involve crossing ethical lines. Indeed, the culture of pride, arrogance and greed at Enron made executives look for whichever solution in order to get more and more profits. Because executives wanted to benefit themselves first, all the decisions they took in the board room were made on the only account of how they could earn more. For all the above-mentioned reasons, operational and financial controls were inadequate,

The company Enron was formed in 1985 after two natural gas companies, Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth merged together. Kenneth Lay, former chief executive officer of Houston Natural Gas was named CEO of Enron and a year later, Lay was assigned to the chairman of Enron. A few years later, Enron launched a website to allow customers to buy stock for Enron, making it the largest business site in the world. The growth of Enron was rapid; it was even named seventh largest company on the Fortune 500 list; however things began to fall apart in 2001. (News, 2006). In the third quarter of that same year, Enron posted an enormous loss of over $600 million in four years. This is one of the reasons why one of the top executive resigned even though he had only after six months on the job. The stock prices of Enron fell dramatically.

Enron was being named by Fortune “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six executive years. However, under the mask of being one of the world’s major electricity, natural gas, communication, pulp and paper companies, they were revealed that their financial condition was planned accounting fraud. They are driven by the profit impulsion and distorted moral philosophies. Traders are direct people who move power around west and make profit for Enron. In order to meet Enron’s objective, they contempt any value except making money.

Enron’s ride is quite a phenomenon: from a regional gas pipeline trader to the largest energy trader in the world, and then back down the hill into bankruptcy and disgrace. As a matter of fact, it took Enron 16 years to go from about $10 billion of assets to $65 billion of assets, and 24 days to go bankruptcy. Enron is also one of the most celebrated business ethics cases in the century. There are so many things that went wrong within the organization, from all personal (prescriptive and psychological approaches), managerial (group norms, reward system, etc.), and organizational (world-class culture) perspectives. This paper will focus on the business ethics issues at Enron that were raised from the documentation Enron: The Smartest Guys

several actions that led to Enron’s bankruptcy. The issues were with the accounting method used as well as the negligence in the methodology of the company’s administration. Although once upon a time it was at its best, but gradually due to mismanagement, lack of sufficient business, improper business strategies and greed of the employees and the leadership all together became the reason for Enron’s bankruptcy. Under the section of Federal Bankruptcy Code, giant companies seek financial protection. Even it allows the company to protect itself from such threats, still all of the above were neglected by Enron Corporation.

The first important factor in the Enron case advanced interests on share price. The second factor how the company was liberalized over the past 20 years along with the reduction of legal responsibility of investment banks and accounting firms. The third factor, which is the most important, was the immediate alteration of pay packages given to investment bankers, executives, and accountants (Barreveld, 2002). In this case, the factors mentioned above was a result of the culture implemented by the executive leaders whom were influenced by unethical behaviors they engaged in. One could agree that Enron was definitely reaping the bad seeds that the

Enron’s ride is quite a phenomenon: from a regional gas pipeline trader to the largest energy trader in the world, and then back down the hill into bankruptcy and disgrace. As a matter of fact, it took Enron 16 years to go from about $10 billion of assets to $65 billion of assets, and 24 days to go bankruptcy. Enron is also one of the most celebrated business ethics cases in the century. There are so many things that went wrong within the organization, from all personal (prescriptive and psychological approaches), managerial (group norms, reward system, etc.), and organizational (world-class culture) perspectives. This paper will focus on the business ethics issues at Enron that were raised from the documentation Enron: The Smartest Guys

The Enron was known as one of the energy giants of the United States. It was named as the “America’s Most Innovative Company” by the Fortune. Just before its collapse, its overall rating was AAA+ with the revenues beyond $100 billion. With such impressive reputation, by the start of 21st century, Enron was perceived to be indestructible. There have always been rumors about suspicious accounting activities and involvements of the top management of Enron. However, no evidence could be found about it

In this case of Enron the corporate culture played a vital role of its collapse. It was culture of full of moneymaking strategies and greed, in the firm Greed was good and money was God. There was no or very little regards for ethics or the law, they operated as there was no law and ethics in the world (Enron Ethics, 2010). Such culture affected all the employees of the firm from top to down. Organizational culture supported unethical behaviour and practises, corruption, cheating and those were all widespread. Many executives and managers knew that the firm is following illegal and unethical practises, but the executives and the board of directors did not knew how to change this unethical culture, the firm used creative accounting and were making showing misleading profits every day. Reputation management enabled them carry on their illegal and unethical operations. Moreover if the company made huge Revenue in the unethical way then the new individual who joined the firm would also have to practise all those unethical practises to survive in the company. All of the management was filled by greed and ambition, their decisions became seriously imperfect, thus the firm fell back and managers had to pay in the price in the form imprisonment and fines. Greed is the main key factors that brought the Enron “the most innovative company” to downfall. Enron was looking into the ways of

Enron’s reported net income grew from $703 million in 1998 to $979 million in 2000, totaling 35.1% profit growth for the three-year period. Enron was among the leading of “high performing” companies by sustaining a high earnings growth insight. However, as Table 1 indicates, Enron’s reported profits were microscopic relation to revenues. Net income did not grow at anything near the same rate as revenues, which grew a remarkable rate of more than 3 times of the income from 1998 to 2000. As a result, there was a steady decline in net profit margin, from 2.2% in 1998 to a paltry 1% in 2001. Similarly, Enron’s gross profit margin

From 1990’s until fall 2001 Enron was known as one of the best America’s energy, commodities and services company. Enron was the largest