WINTERBOURNE VIEW The review found that there was a systemic failure to protect people or to investigate allegations of abuse. The provider had failed in its duty to notify the C.Q.C(Quality Care Commission) of serious incidents involving injuries to patients, or occasions when they had gone missing. Inspectors said that staff did not appear to understand the needs of the people in their care, adults with learning disabilities , complex needs and challenging behaviour. Staff who had no background in care services had been recruited, references were not always checked and staff were not trained or supervised properly. Some staff were too ready to use methods of restraint without considering alternatives.
Carl demonstrated meager planning, implementation, and unwieldiness to follow-through with his assigned duties. It appears that Carl Robins is not qualified or trained properly to do his job successfully. This issue may have been averted by establishing a systematic leadership and mentoring plan by ABC, Inc. to train and advise their new employees. Several issues stand out immediately. New employees did not have the required forms completed and their transcripts were not on file.
Because she was never able to gain any type of trust from the team we implemented the new plan in a way that was very forceful. The members of the team were not in support of the new plan so this caused the plan to not have the needed resources it needed it order to
The 6 people chosen for this particular team are not compatible, personality wise. There is an overwhelming sense of “backstabbing” between all the group members This is seen when Bret O’Brien asks to meet with Jack alone about some issues on the project because he “can’t afford the time to deal with Valerie’s [Merz] predictable drama.” The pressure that Merz is placing on the group to meet the deadline for the project and incorporate the modular design has created tension within the team as they see her as pushy and intrusive. There is a lack of communication and information sharing within the team, which has challenged the decision-making ability of the team. 3) How does the functional structure at MediSys impact the success of the team dynamics? c. The key point of a functional structure is having employees with a specialization in one of the key tasks or areas for the specified project.
There are not enough regulations and monitoring system for the daily accounting activities. For instance, management and auditors spend very little time reviewing the insignificance of petty cash account. So the five elements of internal control is not work well in this company. The control environment was not effective; there was no effective risk management, which helped the company to realize its objectives; control activities and monitoring are lack. Moreover, the CEO is ultimately responsible for the internal control who assumes primary responsibility for the system of internal control.
There is an emphasis on factual and numerical reporting on which we make decisions about how our company will be run. This is a seriously flawed method of management in that there is a complete lack of thought to the psychological impact of their decisions and management of the organization. The lack of empathy is palatable in the room during these meetings. My failure to elicit empathy for others and myself in the group creates a huge challenge for me. In order to more effectively contribute to the organization, I would like to spend some time researching techniques to connect on an emotional level with the team.
Discuss the failures on the part of the Japanese and Indian managers that contributed to the present situation. The Japanese and Indian managers contributed to the present situation by not demonstrating respect or empathy for the employees and caring about their needs. They did not care for their grievances and refused to let top management know about such grievances. Since upper management did not know about employees grievances nothing was done to resolve the issues at hand. 3.
The IT team had the business team so confused during the meeting that they eventually just tuned out and IT never actually got to talking about how the new technology could be used for marketing and why it was a good idea. The next issue is the lack of integration between IT and business. Not only do they have problems communicating the points they are trying to get across in language that can be easily understood, but the business end feels as though IT does not know how to meet their goals. A good example of this is on page 76 where it is discussed that “IT people don’t even know some of our basic business functions” and “We don’t feel IT is contributing to creating new business value for Hefty.” Lastly it seems as though there is bad time management and planning on the IT end. I cannot be too harsh on this considering that many projects do not go as planned, on schedule or on budget but this did raise a red flag in the mini case.
Micromanagement like this puts employees in a threatened state and unable to perform their best. Additionally, while the reward system may have appeared functional, it ultimately was very poorly designed. Employees felt incentivized to simply “impress” their superiors, which did not necessarily correlate with actual performance. Further, the assessment cloaked evaluations as a part of career development counseling, creating a conflict of interest for the auditor collecting performance information from the employees. Finally, the evaluation system failed to require managers to provide feedback to their reports, inhibiting an environment of learning or growth.
In their study, Cassell et al. (2001) found that few of the owners/managers of SMEs do not believe in the appropriateness and potential of benchmarking because the expected outcomes are not immediate and considerable time and resources are needed for completion of the activity. The survey conducted by Adebanjo et al. (2010) in both LEs and SMEs context reported that the organizations do not use benchmarking due to lack of resources, unavailability of suitable benchmarking partners, lack of understanding and technical knowledge of benchmarking activity, high cost and time duration, inability to assess the benefits of benchmarking, lack of top management interest and support. Panwar et al.