Group 8 – “For a Worthy Cause” Case Assessment

The case “For a Worthy Cause” had definitely been a challenging situation to be
in due to the diversity of factors that would affect the decision-making of the person who
is dealing with the situation. That is why, in order to properly assess the case and to
conclude the decision-making process, it would be best to state the summary of the
case first which would serve as the basis for the identification of the ethical dilemma,
which would then open the floor for alternatives and the pros and cons for each.
In summary of the case, Sheila Ortiz was working on a project of Realty Holding,
Inc. situated in Bulacan wherein she and her team were to acquire the 40-hectare
property in Casipit. Her team was tasked to secure the clearance needed from the
Municipal Mayor. The project would definitely affect the residents of the area such as
farmers losing their source of income due to the sale of land. The process of getting the
clearance took months before a proper meeting happened. The Mayor, considering the
position he was in where the people were dependent on him, would support their project
and release the clearance in the event where Sheila and RHI would provide P4m as a
representation expense. To prove such thing, there were people stationed in and out of
the Mayor’s house wearing shabby clothes. Sheila, her team and her manager are now
contemplating whether they would recommend this “suggestion” of the mayor to the
higher management.
From this situation, our group was able to identify the Ethical Dilemma of the
case: “Is the suggestion of the mayor, where the team would provide P4m to the mayor
just to get the clearance, the right thing to do? If so, then the team should recommend
doing so. If not, what should they do?” For this to be answered, the pros and cons
should be weighted. The only good events that would transpire upon the execution of
this suggestion would be: (1) The project would now proceed and will not be delayed
any further, and (2) The residents would not be inconvenienced in any way. The cons,
however, are the following: (1) RHI would incur drastic losses due to the sudden P4m
expense, (2) The project may as well be cancelled upon the suggestion of the solution
to the higher management, and (3) Sheila and her team would be the people who would
shoulder such losses.
Upon first look, it would be ethical to go with the what the mayor has negotiated
since it would help the residents which would equate to saving lives of the unfortunate.
However, if one were to consider how the mayor acted with the proposal of the project
which are the following: (1) He delayed the release of the clearance until it was
convenient to him, (2) He rescheduled the meeting to create a scene where Sheila, her
team and manager would feel empathetic to the town’s struggles, (3) He acted
unprofessionally by letting common people witness the business proposal, which is
supposedly only known by the people involved first, and (4) The whole meeting was
premediated – the mayor knew the project was important to Sheila and RHI which is
why he imposed such expense. Due to these factors, our group decided to think of
alternatives and the weight of each instead of proceeding with the mayor’s suggestion.
It would be illogical to go with the plan of what seem like a scam or someone taking
advantage their company’s wealth. Especially so since the mayor seems unfitting for the
position.
 The possible alternatives that Sheila could take are: (1) Properly negotiate with
the Mayor since it was not stated in the case that it is non-negotiable, (2) Hire an
investigator with proper warrant then negotiate, or (3) Cancel the said project.
Alternative 1 requires further negotiation. The negotiation would comprise of: (1)
Instead of an immediate P4m expense, the money in question would begiven in a form
of income through job opportunities, (2) Hire the farmers who would lose their source of
income, and (3) Stop giving financial aid to the residents and instead give them job
opportunities for them to earn their keep. This alternative would give a good outcome for
both sides. The mayor and the town would be benefitting from this solution. However,
there is a risk of the mayor not agreeing to such negotiation. The P4m is just something
the mayor would definitely not pass on. That is why this alternative is not the answer,
merely wishful thinking
Alternative 3 is cancelling the project. This is the most logical thing to do next,
but this would result to the mayor’s side incurring no physical loss, just a loss of
opportunity, while RHI would lose a lot, especially due to the time and resources that
was used on the project.
Alternative 2 requires Sheila and her team to hire an investigator to check the
town’s financial state, and the actions done by the Mayor during his time in position then
negotiate while having the information in hand. The negotiation process in Alternative 1
is the same in this case, but this time, Sheila has a backing. The investigator has to
gather the necessary information that is detrimental to the mayor’s position. A
municipal’s funds and how they use it will lead to the situation wherein the Mayor would
be held liable. It was stated that the mayor was giving financial aid. Although this is what
the Mayor should do and it is up to the Mayor on how to use the fund, if the funds
earned by this government were used only for giving freebies to the residents and not
for project development which would give the residents jobs to earn a living, then the
next time the municipality would receive government funds, if Sheila were to show these
data to the government in charge of providing funds to the municipality, then the budget
for the municipality would be lessened and the position of the mayor will be in danger.
This might seem like blackmailing at first. But, looking at it in a 3 rd party perspective, it is
Sheila merely trying to do the right thing by reporting the misdeeds of the mayor. When
this is brought up during the negotiation with the mayor, the mayor will then have
nothing else to do but to comply with terms of the company. This would, in turn, help
both sides without anyone losing much. The mayor and the residents would still earn a
proper living, therefore justifying the fact that they should be able to cover their financial
needs. They would just lose the opportunity of increasing their budget by P4m (and the
mayor gets to keep his reputation safe). Sheila and RHI would not incur much losses
since the fee for hiring an investigator is nothing compared to a P4m expense. Of
course, all these would be executed after Sheila has reported the situation to the higher
management.

Hiring an investigator and using the information gathered as an instrument in

negotiation would be the best thing to do here in order to incur small losses and “save”
everyone. No one would lose, per se. As a matter of fact, if Sheila does not want this
thing to happen any further, after negotiations have finished and the mayor has
released the clearance, Sheila and her team can still submit these evidences and have
the law take away the position of the mayor and have someone more competent to lead
the new town.