The lawsuit discussed in this study presents a critical issue in the decision-making process. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Anomalous are both CyberTech’s clients. However, the company is involved in the case in which it has to support Anomalous as a plaintiff and another case where it will potentially have to testify against it. The information presented regarding these circumstances poses a threat to the integrity of CyberTech due to a possible conflict of interest. There is a certain necessity to discuss the potential solutions to the issue, however, a part of the crucial data regarding the primary and secondary cases is left undisclosed. To draw a weighted conclusion, the case will be checked for the assumptions left by the lack of information, the presented facts will be analyzed, and possible conclusions will be discussed.
The cases unrelated to the OPM breach create a conflict of interest for CyberTech since the companies who are suspected in the OPM case are also being presented by the firm. The given data shows the disparity in access to the information that CyberTech has. The OPM case presents a vital piece of information that depicts its importance, as millions of workers have been affected by this breach. However, the data regarding the second case listed in this study does not present any additional points outside of Anomalous’s claim that there was a hacking attempt on the company’s facilities.
The lack of information regarding these topics leads to a necessity to make some assumptions while avoiding others. It is crucial to keep in mind that the clients from the companies suspected in the OPM breach may or may not be involved in the incident. The indisputable fact of Anomalous’s involvement in the hack is not proven by the text of the case. Based on this information, the company must make a decision based on ethics and reason while taking into account the current underrepresentation of several factors that can change the direction of its actions. Each company must not be judged on its trustworthiness by CyberTech, as this role lies on the court (Schwartz, 2017). Ethical decision-making is crucial in preserving the company’s image as an unbiased cybersecurity consultant.
To prevent any potential losses of profit and reputation, CyberTech should refrain from dropping either case based on the data from the text of the case. By choosing one company over another while having to make a significant amount of assumptions, CyberTech will lose reputation due to the lack of objectivity. As the goal of a company is to preserve its credibility, CyberTech must not decide whether the suspect companies are guilty or not since it will be considered unethical for the company to make such a conclusion. Therefore, since the company needs to maintain an image of an unbiased cybersecurity consultant, it is necessary to choose a single case and resolve it before taking on a second one. The ethical decision-making process implies the inclusion of the points of view from all involved sides (Schwartz, 2017). To ensure that the decision will lead to the best possible outcome, the company is encouraged to explain its concern regarding a potential conflict of interest to both the OPM and Anomalous. This action will help CyberTech avoid miscommunication between either company and preserve its reputation.
One of the crucial questions that CyberTech needs to ask itself is the extent of harm done by assumptions in the chosen solution. Alternative explanations that can stem from the unexposed data are critical in the analysis of the situation. This uncertainty creates the need for multiple hypotheses since they can present a potential explanation if any additional information is revealed in the future (Pherson, 2013). For example, the evidence due to which the OPM suspects Anomalous in being the one responsible for the breach is not disclosed. In this scenario, if Anomalous is proven to be the hacker group behind the OPM security breach, is it advised for CyberTech to drop the second case in which our company represents Anomalous as a client plaintiff.
The second potential conclusion drawn from this scenario is that Anomalous does stand behind the OPM hack, or a claim made by the suspect is false. In this case, CyberTech’s decision must be in favor of dropping Anomalous’s case. Procedural justice calls for using objective facts, laws, and rules as motives in decision-making (Schwartz, 2017). However, this conclusion involves heavy assumptions and requires substantial evidence for consideration.
In conclusion, CyberTech must focus on working on a single case and drop or delay pursuing the second one. However, the lack of data can create a situation in which the company may continue managing both instances or will have to choose the OPM while dropping Anomalous altogether. Therefore, CyberTech is encouraged to gather additional information before making a final decision. Ethical decision-making requires the company to inform both the OPM and Anomalous regarding the basis for its actions in either case.
References
Pherson, R. (2013). The five habits of the master thinker. Journal of Strategic Security, 6(3), 54-60. Web.
Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Business ethics: An ethical decision-making approach. John Wiley & Sons.