Ethics Case Analysis Example

In the case, “Doing Bad to Do Good,” a member of an independent consultancy firm named C., was hired by a state funded agency to complete an evaluation of a local community program which helped disabled members of the community to complete applications for financial and medical support. During C.’s evaluation, it was discovered that the workers of the community organization, including the director, exaggerated information on client’s applications to secure more money for the clients. This discovery created a moral dilemma for C., as the clients would struggle without the extra money, but C. is required to report the exaggeration. The dilemma in question has many short-term and long-term consequences and risks for all stakeholders involved if applications continue to be exaggerated, and C. is faced with both empowering factors to make the ethical decision and rationalizations which discourage making the ethical decision.

Stakeholders

Before the potential risks and consequences can be properly assessed, it is important for the major stakeholders in the case to be identified. The stakeholder who will be most affected if the fraudulent applications were reported would be the members of the community who are applying for financial support. Stakeholders from the community organization include the director, as he is aware of the activities occurring, and the members who are helping create the applications. Finally, the third major stakeholder in this case is C., as the decision she chooses to make has the potential to impact both her reputation and the future of her career.

Consequences

Each of the three stakeholders would suffer both short-term and long-term consequences if the applications continued to be exaggerated. First, C. as a member of a consultancy agency is expected to maintain a degree of honesty and transparency when conducting contracted business practices (Mihai, 2008). In addition to this, as C. runs the consultancy agency, she would be demonstrating poor organizational behavior practices for her other employees, as she is displaying poor business ethics as a manager. This could lead to the continued poor ethics in the business as her employees might follow her example (Yamin, 2020). Even if this is not the case, C. would not doubt feel a sense of guilt and potentially enjoy her practice less because of allowing the exaggerated applications to continue.

The director and employees of the community organization also have the potential to suffer consequences from the continuation of the exaggerated applications. While the organization does have good intentions, they are contributing to a common belief that disability benefits are often abused (Dorfman, 2019). Exaggerating on applications also creates an atmosphere of dishonesty that might not be fully understood by new volunteers. Consequentially, the organization may begin to fail if new volunteers carry the dishonest practices to other aspects of the organization that do not revolve around gaining money for those who need it.

The clients with disabilities may also suffer consequences from the continued submission of exaggerated applications. If they were ever to leave the community or gain assistance in the application from another source, they would receive an unexpectedly lower amount of financial compensation. In this sense, the “do bad to do good” motto held by the community organization is doing their clients a disservice. In consequence, the clients of the organization are financially tied to the community which they are currently located.

Risks

All three shareholders have an equal amount of risk if the applications continue to be exaggerated. First and foremost, if the applications were found to be exaggerated, C.’s consultancy firm would suffer. One of the pillars of giving voices to values is purpose. It would appear to contractors that C.’s purpose for running the consultancy firm would not be to only produce quality work but would instead be influenced by personal biases. This would cause damage to her firm’s ability to gain contracts, and damager her reputation as a contractor.

The community organization and the clients both run risks of submitting the exaggerated applications. If caught, both parties may potentially suffer legal consequences, as exaggerating on financial claims may be considered fraud (Dorfman, 2019). In addition to this, the community organization would no doubt suffer from strong damages to the reputation which have the potentially to end the organization altogether. At the very least, the director would be removed and a new one, who would no doubt implement a new motto, would be put into place. The clients would no doubt suffer from the loss of financial stability and could potentially lose all disability benefits (Dorfman, 2019). While the intention of the organization is good, the risk it is placing itself, and its clients at, might outweigh the benefits.

Rationalizations

If C. informs the organization that she is reporting them, she no doubt will be met with rationalizations opposing her. Rationalizations are often used to oppose the practice of giving voice to values. The biggest rationalization she can be expected to be met with, is loyalty. As C. is from this community, and wants to see it succeed, the director and members of the organization would not doubt attempt to try to convince her by attempting to appeal to her community loyalty. Another potential rationalization might be materiality. Materiality attempted to display the unethical behavior as something minor and should just be ignored. In this case, the director of the organization might claim that the practice is acceptable since no one is being hurt, and those in need are being helped despite the method being unethical.

For the exaggerated applications to continue, there would be many contributing factors. One of the main principles of organizational behavior is values, and for C. to allow this practice to continue, she would have to betray her values. From the organization’s standpoint, the same director would need to remain in charge, and employees with the same values would have to work for the organization. 

Empowering Factors

C. does have many empowering factors at her disposal. Empowering factors are supportive to the good practice of giving voice to value. As evidenced by her reputation and longevity in the field, C. has strong ethical values and a good understanding of the situation. Her understanding of the situation and experience can work in her favor, as it will allow her to both report the exaggerations, and help the community run organization figure out the next steps it should take. This would allow for C. not only to make the correct ethical decision, but also show that she cares about the community still, exhibiting a good ethical performance (Yamin, 2020). Communicating with the organization that she cannot betray her firm, but she also wants to take steps to help them before she reports the organization might allow for the two parties to work together to find a solution, exhibiting good organization behavior. While it may not be an easy option, there are supporting factors for C. to make the correct ethical decision.

Conclusion

C. posed an ethical question with whether she should report a community run organization for unethical practices. If she decides not to report the organization, she, and the members of the organization, along with its clients, will face consequences. This choice also carries risks such as, potential harm to C.’s firm and potential legal action against the organization and clients if discovered. If C. decides to make the ethical decision she will be met with rationalizations from the community as to why she should not, including materiality and loyalty. To combat these, C. has empowering factors like experience and an adequate understanding of the situation. In conclusion, in compliance with the principles of giving voice to value and organization behavior, it would be best for both C. and the community if she was to make the right ethical decision and report her findings.