Ethical DilemmaZaird & Associates has some conflict of interest when it comes to the way how their employees operate. As Sarah is more concerned with doing an easier job, Zaird & Associates is concerned about credibility or legal liability.ProblemThe current company culture is impaired. In the workplace, it is fundamental that employees have similar mentally when it comes to corporate governance. By claiming they were “outdated” and “stupid procedures” don’t allow the individual to form their own company opinions. Judging that this occurred outside the workplace, it is creating a toxic work environment. Talking harshly outside the workplace can have some lasting impact on employees such as low morale.The current issues that underlie Sarah being untrustworthy are that the firm could be understaffed. They may also need to update their systems to something that would require the employee to electronically sign a document after being completed.While Sara might have all the right to say her truths about the company her speaking about the complaints to an individual instead of HR. This could not only create a bad image for the company, but also reflects badly on herself. The company, on the other hand, carries some blame as well.When employees aren’t following the internal code, it can also be a red flag for that particular employee. Some of the basic internal controls that a smaller business should have are:Segregation of dutiesAsk questions about the transactionsRotate employee job functionsConduct surprise auditsEstablish third party line for fraud detectionPossible courses of action and constraintsIn the current scenario, there are two possible courses of action that the associate can take. If the associate was going to follow Sarah, they will be able to submit all the paperwork on time, which can only be beneficial for so long. The credibility of the firm would be jeopardized. They can choose to follow Sarah’s lead, or follow the correct way to conduct accounting. Since they have only been with the company for roughly 9 months, it may be helpful for them in the short term to follow Sarah’s lead in order to keep their job. This will also allow all associates to complete their work in the budgeted time. Although it can be considered “going with the flow”, legal liability falls on the associate’s shoulders, so if they get caught, they will be partially to blame. The other option is to restore credibility of the firm by following the initial procedures. In the long term, the trust is ruined for Sarah, the company, and the other associate. The critical techniques that are used in accounting need to be followed; this is why accountant are required to take an exam to test their credibility. The associate can choose to speak to Sarah about the job that she is doing, but given her seniority, it may not end well. Her performance and honesty will be recognized. Given the time restraints for Zaird & Associates, by following every single procedure may put them behind in terms of work which can create a lot of damage for the firm.Best Course of ActionI believe the best course of action would be to follow Sarah’s lead. Although it is not morally the right thing to do, it would allow the employee to do their work accordingly without raising concern to managers or fellow employees. It may be helpful for the associate to look into a third party line in order to determine the next course of action. Sometimes the best strategy in business is to lay low. By doing this the employee will be doing the right thing and trying to restore the credibility back to its customers. This would lead to following the law and creating a culture of open and honest communication. Zaird & Associates will also be able to set tone at the top of management so it can be correctly followed on all tiers. Loyalty of accountant is greatly appreciated in business.ConclusionWhen first starting at a company, it can be a helpful tool to follow what the other employees are doing. This is the company culture and if the employee cannot conform to it, this may not be the position for them. If an employee chooses to fight against the way things are currently done, they will likely face the backlash of changing the work flow and may deal with retaliation.