Part C – Giving Voice to Values

This task requires you to read the (attached) scenario ‘Doing Bad to do Good’, from Babson College, and apply the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) framework to respond to the ethical dilemma presented. To demonstrate this application, you need to respond to all of the following questions relating to the scenario. You should aim to write at least 3 pages (1500 words) in response to Part C.

Question C1

Who are the key stakeholders impacted by the ethically questionable behaviour/practice outlined in this scenario and what is at stake for these key parties?

Question C2

What are the reasons and rationalisations that may be used by those trying to justify the ethically questionable behaviour and/or business practice that is causing the main character’s ethical dilemma?

Question C3

What are the most powerful & persuasive responses (i.e. levers) the main character could use to respond to these reasons/ rationalizations? To whom should the argument be made? When? In what context? How can they be applied to enable the main character to act on his/her values, in a way that maximises the positive impact and minimises negative outcomes for all stakeholders?

Question C4

Develop a script that applies the GVV framework to this scenario. This script should begin at the point where the scenario ended. This must include dialogue of conversations with one or more key stakeholders in which the main character is able to give voice to her/his values, by using the most appropriate levers to respond to the most likely reasons and rationalisations, to achieve a more ethical outcome for all stakeholders.

Babson Scenario - “Doing Bad to Do Good”

Caroline ran a small consultancy firm that specialized in offering business support services to local community organizations and social enterprises. Caroline grew up in the local community where she worked and members of her extended family still lived there. Her first job was as a community economic development worker, facilitating the development of social enterprises within the community. Over the past 20 years, Caroline had worked with (and for) many community and state organizations and had a reputation as a conscientious, trustworthy and ethical consultant.

Even though the community organizations or social enterprises were Caroline’s direct clients in her consultancy business, often the funding for the work came from program-based local state funding agencies or corporate donors. In addition to writing business plans and providing financial accounts and marketing services, Caroline was often asked to provide program evaluation services. For this work, Caroline was hired by the community organization (under contract) to carry out an evaluation of that organization’s programs. Her fee, however, was arranged and paid directly by the state agency in order to facilitate transparency.

Caroline had been asked by a state agency to carry out a financial evaluation of a community organization that worked with severely disabled clients and assisted them with their applications for state financial income and medical support. Without the assistance of the community organization, whose employees and volunteers worked tirelessly to help their clients 24/7, the majority of these individuals would be unable to live above the poverty line.

While conducting the evaluation, Caroline learned that in some cases the information provided on the client’s application for statutory support was exaggerated in order to secure the highest allotment of funding for the client. When confronted, the Director of the community organization admitted that on occasions, his employees inflated some disabilities so that their clients would not lose out financially. He admitted that this was an unwritten policy of the organization. His rationale for this was that the state agency’s criteria for the benefits meant that his employees must “do bad to do good” for their clients. Caroline knew the community organization very well, and held its employees in the highest regard. She knew that the employees collectively held substantial knowledge and experience in the field and were competent and highly motivated towards achieving the social mission of the organization. She also realized that without the services offered by the community organization and the state benefits, their clients would be in dire financial need.

Under the terms of reference for the evaluation, Caroline was required to report on the application process carried out between the community organization and its clients. If she revealed this “doing bad to do good” practice, it could have a catastrophic effect on the reputation of the community organization and its employees. If Caroline did not report on the practice, and at a later point the fraudulent activities of the community organization became known, Caroline’s reputation as an independent and trustworthy consultant could come under scrutiny which could end her business and her relationship with state agencies. Caroline knew what she wanted to do but how could she highlight the application problems, without sacrificing the clients’ much needed funds and without risking the Director’s position in the community organization?