Conflict of Interest

Critical Thinking Paper: Conflict of Interest
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date
Critical Thinking Paper: Conflict of Interest
Summary of the Case Study
Alice Johnson, the CEO, expresses concern regarding an international hacking lawsuit. A hack at the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, resulted in a data breach, which included compromised background information of a considerable number of staff. She indicates that the company has hired CyberTech as the cyber forensics consultant for the law firm that handles the case. A suspect in the data breach claims that the US-based Equation Set tried to hack its facilities. Importantly, the suspect is a non-US, which implies that the case involves domestic and international test hacker groups. In one instance, Anomalous is arguably a defendant and plaintiff in the OPM data breach and Equation Set, respectively. According to the CEO, the case is challenging. There is a possibility of conflict of interest since CyberTech, hired in the breach case at OPM, also represents clients from the companies, including Anomalous, a suspect in the breach. Even though the cases are unrelated, one cannot ignore the ties between CyberTech and the suspects and the conflict of interest. It raises concerns such as biasness in cybersecurity, which could impede organizational reputation and ability to invite notable client base.
Analysis of the Case
I believe the cyber security firm is in a dilemma. The company is representing clients from a suspect company in the OPM case in Alice’s firm. At the same time, it is also involved with a law firm that is hired to handle the lawsuit resulting from the hack, which I have established that OPM suspects was committed by Anomalous, the suspect. This raises concerns such as the possibility of biasness in the representation of both companies and cases. The question revolves around whether CyberTech should represent both firms in the cases simultaneously or drop one of the cases. Even though the representation of the suspect involves a totally unrelated case, I think it is impossible to disregard the imminent conflict of interest, hence the need to drop one of the cases to limit exposure to reputational damage and disputes resulting from the claims such as biasness. I am convinced that maintaining both cases invites implications, including conflict of interest, which can sabotage both cases, resulting in the loss of clients and a damaged reputation that might impede future business operations and customer relations.
I have learned that in business ethics, conflict of interest thrives on the possibility of bias in one’s judgment, actions, and decision-making. According to Dragomir (2017), one factor that threatens organizational reputation, integrity, and efficiency is the conflict of interest. In fact, in most instances, companies have a code of ethics that governs exposure to conflict of interest and how to handle it successfully. In my opinion, the firm would be biased if they prioritized the client that meets their organizational interests, including focusing on profitability, at the expense of the other client. I believe CyberTech might be biased against Anomalous especially when it pays better than the law firm in the OPM case. In this case, it is evident the outcome may be in favor of Anomalous, as the firm limits objectivity and fairness or impartiality in the case in favor of their interests. I argue that the information obtained in confidentiality from Anomalous can be exploited to favor their position as the defendant in the OPM case. More often, the bias is related to the accrued benefits, which include corporate interests such as maintaining profitability.
Bias can adversely affect organizational success. Watching the case, I believe that CyberTech is increasingly exposed to bias as they address both firms’ cases. The decision-making process is exposed to cognitive bias as the firm tries to ensure both firms achieve their intended objectives. OPM wants to prove Anomalous was responsible for the data breach, while Anomalous has a different case and has arguably contracted CyberTech. This inevitably invites bias in decision-making that worsens as the firm tries to achieve its primary and secondary interests, including financial gains. I have established that bias further violates ethical culture as the firm does not embrace an objective approach where the best outcomes are reached. In other words, risk of cognitive bias, which includes making poor decisions and judgments that ultimately favors one firm at the expense of the other (Berhet, 2021). For this reason, CyberTech must adopt measures such as reliance on conflict of interest policies.
More often, competing interests rise in cases of conflict of interest. From the case study, I have noted the exposure to competing interests. As such, I conclude that it is nearly impossible to satisfy the expectations and needs of both firms because they are intertwined at some point, and the risk of bias is notable. In this regard, there is a need to ensure that competing interests are under consideration to ensure that misjudgment does not arise from them (Swift et al., 2017; Romain, 2015). Romain (2015) reveals that bias is inevitable when CyberTech is exposed to the dilemma, as their representation and service cannot adequately satisfy both parties. Drawing from the above information, I conclude that the risk of ruining client and public trust is inevitable and can damage future organizational relations since the process signals reputational damage, inefficiency, and lack of integrity. In other words, embracing both cases is what Carlo (2021) considers an opportunistic behavior where the management disregards the negative implications in favor of immediate interests. In the process, as noted earlier, the firm is exposed to consequences such as bias that is tied to inefficiency and lack of integrity.
In my opinion, the level of freedom of action reduces when there are competing interests and the dilemma over which case triumphs over the othe...