Who to serve? The ethical dilemma of employment consultants in nonprofit disability employment network organisations

Australian Journal of Social Issues, Autumn, 2009 by Stephen Thornton, Greg Marston

DOUG: Well I think that [organisation] expects results basically; first and foremost, that's how we ... roll financially and are able to provide the service ...

RAY: ... number one, making sure that we achieve our milestones on time or ahead of time for each client, that we put in the correct amount of work, therefore money on the clients we have, urn, and that, you know, we make sure that we ... can bring in more money than is spent on us in terms of wages and cars and things like that ...

In understanding the ethical dilemma some ECs are confronted with in this new organisational environment, Banks (2001) identifies the difference between ethical issues; ethical problems; and ethical dilemmas. In the context of this study, the ethical issue relates to the broader question of whether disability clients should be punished for not engaging in job-seeking activities in return for government financial assistance. The ethical problem this potentially creates for ECs is that the organisation, in which they are employed, has entered into a contract to deliver employment services where it is now contractually bound to report clients to Centrelink who do not engage in these job-seeking activities. The ethical dilemma, however, arises when ECs or a sub-group of ECs believe the interests of the organisation and the welfare of some particular clients is mismatched.

Although Linda, one EC in the first group that practice 'consistent' with the guidelines, believes the organisation is now in a balancing act of both acting in the interests of the client and fulfilling the organisation's contractual obligations with DEWR, for her and others in this group there is no ethical dilemma. While Ramia and Carney (2003: 270) believe that, to ensure their survival and financial credibility, nonprofits are being forced to both emulate the organisational strategies of for-profit organisations while trying to maintain their social mission, making this brand of 'tightrope walking a significantly difficult act', for the first group, they will always act as directed by the organisation. If indeed, as Doug and Ray believe, the mission of the organisation has shifted even further toward financial objectives and away from a more social mission, then for this group, this shift will make little difference to their reporting regime. As discussed earlier, this group justify their actions in 'duty to the organisation' by adhering to the guidelines. Similarly, ECs in the second group are more likely than not to place duty to the organisation before the welfare of the client. While they may understand this situation as an 'ethical problem', for them it is not a dilemma. The ethical dilemma in implementing the Welfare-to-work policy in this study is only experienced by the third group of ECs.

These ECs must sometimes choose between the interests of the organisation and the welfare of the client. This is a difficult choice, especially when they believe the impact on some clients is too punitive. Street-level workers, unlike those at the top of hierarchical organisational structures like DEWR, do not see citizens as 'abstractions but as individuals' and, therefore, their relationships with their clients are often 'personal and emotional, rarely cold and rational' (Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2000: 334). As Kelly (1994) explains, it is a commitment to the ethical principles of justice and respect that can help explain the reasons for the covert actions street-level workers take, which may be inconsistent with policy regulations.