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.
Finally, the evaluation system failed to require managers to provide feedback to their reports, inhibiting an environment of learning or growth. Challenges Encountered and How the Company’s Culture Could Be Leveraged During this type of restructuring, where tough losses are incurred, any
Denver Department Stores Case Study Colby Lowery, Alan Koepke, Kenneth Lindsey Jr. MGT 824 February 28, 2014 Jeff Cohu Denver Department Stores Case Study Identified Symptoms: • Cut-Throat Environment: unhappy employees, unfriendly environment. ➢ Lack of input by sales personnel. Mr. Cornwall had no clear expectations or goals for employees. • Customer dissatisfaction: Customers felt pressured and harassed. Had to ask repeatedly for help by different sales people.
• They did not identify, and manage, risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of patients. • They had not responded to or considered complaints and views of people about the service. • Investigations into the conduct of staff were not robust and had not safeguarded people. • They did not take reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it before it occurred. • They did not respond appropriately to allegations of abuse.
First, the company created “bucket accounts” where cover-up activities were recorded and then moved and divided between inventory of existing stores. The executives knew that the auditor would not audit accounts with a zero balance, therefore, the “bucket accounts” were never reviewed by the auditor. Second, the auditor did not review
But in Henderson Printing , the compensation system was unbalanced i.e. no structure of compensation system in an organization. The second criteria is "Fit with and
Clearly Mark was a director that showed no concern at all for the clients and I believe that he mishandled the funds. He only went to work for a paycheck and not because he cared. Is the director an ethical role model? The director is not an ethical role model at all. Were the director’s messages congruent with the organization’s stated mission?
THE TROUBLE WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS; Employee screening has become a big business, but not always an accurate one. This article presented instances of people who claimed that background screening firms ruined their chances at job opportunities. In each case the applicants, Ted Pendergrass, Theon Carter, John Griffith, and Ingrid Morales, all have claims that background screening firms have inaccurate information. Ted Pendergrass applied and was rejected for the store supervisor job at Walgreens in November of 2006. The reason, a background screening firm called ChoicePoint, which is the largest screening firm in the United States for corporate employers, had reported to Walgreens that Mr. Pendergrass had a record of “cash register fraud and theft of merchandise” totaling over $7,000.
The CBO was only able to enter accounts when they were assigned with an outstanding balance. This in turn created an issue to where the account representatives were unable to effectively prioritize or monitor their progress (Souza & McCarty,
Committees also have power to appoint specialists. These are not permanent committee members, but specialists from businesses paid by the day. They aim to scrutinise the executive and hold them to account, scrutiny includes policy, administration, and expenditure of government departments. Source C suggests that Select Committees often have their recommendations ignored, and therefore the effectiveness of the committees is decreased. Due to the reports produced by Select Committees not being binding governments can disregard the advice from specialists, and reports that are produced tend not to be yananymous - especially when a general election is near.