Sherry Hunt was a longtime employee of Citigroup who strictly followed rules and ethics. However, she disagreed with the company's new loose credit policies that approved risky loans without proper documentation. When Hunt refused to approve loans without the required HUD-1 form, her decisions were overruled. Feeling ignored and that the compensation system rewarded approving risky loans, Hunt began to consider reporting the violations she witnessed under the Dodd Frank Act. She valued making ethical decisions and addressing problems at the company.

1. 1.) What are Sherry hunts values and motives in this case? From the perspective
of personal wellbeing and organisational effectives how important do you
think it is for organisation to allow and encourage employees voice.
Sherry Hunt was a woman who worked in this business since 1986 and she had always stood
by the book and followed the rules strictly. Her values guided her motivations and she never
wanted to take decisions, which are not moral and unethical. However, her motivation right
now to make the right decision depended on her job security. She had been applying for jobs
for almost a year but never heard back. Therefore, she had to take a right stand now and make
a clear, ethical and moral decision.
There are a number of evidences in the case, which show the moral values of Sherry Hunt.
Sherry Hunt used to work hard and always prided herself on following the rules and built a
successful and long career in the mortgage business. Hunt was the only one, who did not
approve of the credit policies at Citigroup. For example, when the document called HUD-1 was
created had to be signed and approved by FHA for each loan, which had been approved.
The guidelines of the government stated that every loan, which misses HUD-1, should be
rejected. However, the quality rebuttal committee overruled Hunt by saying that HUD-1 did
not determine that whether a loan was bad and they approved the file for FHA insurance. As a
result of this she felt ignored and disrespected and it shows that she had set values in her life
which stopped her from making decisions which are not moral and ethical. She also did not
like the way in which the compensation system worked and bonuses were paid on the number
of the loans approved or processed. She always wanted to address the root problems at
Citigroup. She also began to study the Dodd Frank Act on how she might report the violations
she was witnessing.
Whistleblowing channels are now commonplace in corporate environments. Encouraging
people to speak up makes good business sense. Discouraging employees from speaking up
won’t cause organisational issues to simply “go away”. Instead, people are likely to become
frustrated, stressed and disengaged. They may even resort to finding another channel through
which they can share their concerns. This could mean they take what they know externally to
a regulator, share it on a social media platform or give it to a media outlet.
An effective speak-up procedure encourages employees to discuss their concerns internally
before going outside of the organisation (either to the media or the regulator), and ultimately
protects companies from receiving negative publicity.
With developments in the internet and social networking sites, it is now easier than ever for
employees to make their concerns public. Most organisations may have been, or will be, the
victim of a fraud or theft at the hands of their own employees; but a mechanism for employees
to speak up could help prevent such misconduct
Ankitsha

2. 2.) If you were hunt at the end of the case what course of action would you pursue?
What person or what entity would you tell and how would you tell?
If I was Shery Hunt then I would definitely have field a whistle blower lawsuit against Citigroup and the
Citigroup parent, to pressure. I would definitely claim that the mortgage lender deliberately Ignored fraud
and errors in the government insured mortgage Programs then I am going to canvased convince the US
department of Justice to Join in the suit and send them the details of all the errors and frauds through on
email, so then the it is become easy to solve the case
3.) Draft a short script of what you would say to that stakeholders that considers the
promising arguments or actions that you may use in potential pushback.
If I would have been at the Sherry Hunt place, I would have reached out to the head of the REL
along with the key personals like Browne and Connie in loop. In reaching out to the key
personnel, I would have prepared the list of the frauds identified by not team while auditing the
system and prepare a small memo of 5 pages on it, pointing the areas of fraud only. Then I
would have attached the memo along with proofs in the email and send it with my id to the key
three individuals, the size of the memo is selected small, since the upper management has no
time to go through the lengthy report, which why I’ll will prepare a small snack crispy report
for the management. Then after sending the email to the key three individuals, I would wait for
a week to receive an answer, if I get the answer I will talk in person then to the individuals
showing the areas of fraud its impact and its cause in great details through presentation,
However, if I may not receive the reply to an email, I will write he individual emails to the
three personals asking for the answer. However, if that doesn’t work even, I may reach to the
CEO of REL in person along with the two key individuals of my team and other finance team
to blow the whistle. This will on one hand led me to get the answers while on other hand will
alert the employees and the departments for the upcoming audit about the fraud in the bank.
I will not include the external party, since it will directly impact my job and since there is
scarcity of jobs in the market, I will not risk my position. In addition, the medium of email will
be chosen, since talking in person to the three individual will not generate any strong evidence
of my efforts also, talking in person may raise the conflict among the seniors and me, leading
to the disposition or removal from the company, with no proof at the back, the medium of mail
is selected so to have a strong proof of my efforts. Also the medium of email is a professional
way to reach out .