Greg Smith Case

There is a huge discrepancy between the Executive Summary and the culture outline by Greg Smith and the Frontline television special. After 2008 financial crises Goldman Sachs decided to take time to reflect and reform by creating a Business Standards Committee and construct a formal culture. The Committee ensured firm’s business and practices are at the highest standard and meet client’s expectation based on core values, code of ethics and company mission statement. In the early days, the firm culture was very important and it revolved around teamwork, integrity and a spirit of humility, and always doing right by its client’s interest. It wasn’t just about making money, but doing the right thing and acting ethically. According to Greg Smith, this formal culture does not exist anymore and …show more content…
For the eye of the public and SEC scrutiny, the firm decided to shake things up by re-examining firm’s responsivities to the client’s expectation and improve six important areas; Client Relationship and Responsivities, Conflicts of Interest, Structures Products, Transparence and Disclosure, Committee Governance, and Training and Professional Development.(1) The firm established working groups for each target area and hired consulting firms to provide independence advice and promote a strong culture across the firm. On the other hand Smith and the Frontline television special portray a weak culture that is corrupt as ever before and with hypocritical leadership. This leadership is strong on the communication aspect of moral management but clearly isn’t an ethical person—doesn’t “walk the talk.” It’s a “do as I say, not as I do” approach. (2) Based to Greg Smith, Goldman Sachs corporate structure is driven by rewards and incentives that influenced the level of productivity and the employee tasks. This reinforces unethical behavior because the employees are driven by the goal, making money, and not on the details on how they do it. The same example applies to the Ford Pinto