LDR 615 Week 6 DQ 2
provide subst7nti7l
comment
Num 1 ( K7cey)
The surgic7l unit I work on in
7 hospit7l is currently
working to improve p7tient
s7tisf7ction scores. The
le7ders round on e7ch
person on the unit every d7y
to m7ke sure their needs 7re
being met 7nd if they 7renʼt,
the le7ders 7nd st7ff work
to meet those needs. A
common theme w7s th7t
p7tients werenʼt feeling
he7rd, c7red for properly, or
h7d 7n issue with specific
nurses. The m7n7ger
st7rted 7llowing cert7in
p7tients to decide who their
nurses were going to be.
There w7s even 7n inst7nce
two weeks 7go, where one
of our st7ff nurseʼs moms
w7s on the unit 7nd got to
choose who her nurses
were. This bec7me 7 big
dilemm7 for m7ny re7sons.
The p7tients were dict7ting
the c7re being given 7nd
some nurses were ending up
with uns7fe p7tient
7ssignments, which then
7ltered the s7fety of
everyone else. The nurses
were being put on 7
b7ckburner, with no s7y in
the c7re they were giving.
The dilemm7 w7s solved
once 7 tot7l of ten nurses,
on different occ7sions, went
to spe7k with the m7n7gers
7bout their concerns 7nd 7ll
of the s7fety issues this
ch7nge w7s h7ving on the
nurses 7nd p7tients. She
w7s 7ble to see the ethic7l
dilemm7 h7ppening with
p7tients getting to choose
their nurses, 7nd th7t there
w7s 7 line being crossed
with 7ttempts to ple7se
everyone.
In the process of trying to
help the p7tients uns7tisfied
with their st7y, the
m7n7gers exhibited some
ch7nge blindness, which is
“the in7bility for individu7ls
to recognize ch7nge
occurring 7round them
could be detriment7l to
ch7nge 7doption 7nd over7ll
org7niz7tion7l
effectiveness” (Ellis, 2012, p.
54). The ch7nge w7s 7 good
ide7. But pl7nning steps
were not t7ken, the st7ff
w7s not educ7ted or
communic7ted with 7nd no
rese7rch w7s conducted on
its effectiveness. The
hospit7l h7s 7n ethic7l te7m
m7de m7inly for p7tient
c7re/di7gnosis ethic7l
dilemm7s, but they 7re
7v7il7ble in speci7l c7ses
like this to help solve
problems. While the ide7 is
being completely scr7pped
for now, the le7dership te7m
h7s decided they might be
utilizing the ethic7l te7m in
the future ch7nge pl7nning
process.
Reference
Ellis, R. (2012). M7y I H7ve
Your Attention Ple7se? A
Review of Ch7nge
Blindness. Org7niz7tion
Development Journ7l, 30(3),
54-62.
Num 2 (Le-Nise)
I h7d 7 recent unethic7l
dilemm7 experience 7s one
of our new IDD group homes
h7d 7 poor st7te 7udit
resulting in us receiving 7 45
d7y letter. Most of the
cit7tions were 7s 7 result of
m7n7gement f7ilure, 7t th7t
site, with 7dhere to
m7int7ining protocols,
systems, 7dequ7te st7ffing,
7nd oper7tion7l oversight.
But the re7l problem w7s
th7t when this house w7s
opened 7 ye7r 7go, it w7s
st7ffed with 7ll
unexperienced st7ff. Best
pr7ctice would h7ve been to
tempor7rily tr7nsfer 7 few
senior st7ff to this site to
orient 7nd model for the new
hires.
We h7d to immedi7tely
respond to the cit7tions
noted in the 45 d7y letter
7nd the response h7d to be
7 comprehensive pl7n of
corrective 7ction th7t w7s
re7listic 7nd me7sur7ble.
Restor7tion efforts required
7ll h7nds on deck in
restoring oper7tions 7nd
systems th7t comply with
OPWDD certified group
home regul7tions. To m7ke
7 long story short,
restor7tion efforts h7ve
been extremely frustr7ting
for 7ll disciplines involved
7nd to 7dd to this dilemm7,
the le7der of the division,
who w7s 7lso 7 new hire,
h7s never de7lt with this
type of situ7tion.
For the s7ke of just 7ddind 7
body to the st7ffing pl7n,
7nd without executive
knowledge, the division
le7der filled 7 m7n7gement
position with 7 new hire,
who just h7ppened to be her
friend, who h7d not
completed the full on
bo7rding process, me7ning
th7t the b7ckground check,
finger printing, 7nd OPWDD
tr7ining w7s not completed,
ple7se note th7t these 7re
7ll requirements prior to on
bo7rding 7t 7ny of our work
sites, but some how the
division le7der t7lked her
supervisor into 7llowing the
hire with condition7l
provisions, without
consulting with our HR
dep7rtment. This w7s
cle7rly 7n ex7mple of 7n
unethic7l dilemm7 7nd if it
h7d not been infiltr7ted 7nd
stopped, this occurrence
could h7ve 7dded fuel to the
fire 7nd in 7ddition to the 45
d7y letter, we could h7ve
received immedi7tely
decertific7tion for non7dherence to our hiring
policy.
M7ny unethic7l workpl7ce
beh7viors c7n be stopped
e7rly on or before they st7rt
by employers letting the
st7ff know wh7t the
comp7ny considers to be
unethic7l (R7fner, 2018).
References
R7fner Don, 2018. "Common
Ethic7l Workpl7ce
Dilemm7s". Sm7ll Business Chron.com, https://
sm7llbusiness.chron.com/
common-ethic7l-workpl7cedilemm7s-748.html.01
Febru7ry 2018.
Num 3 (J7net)
Ye7rs 7go, the comp7ny I
worked for decided to
ch7nge their br7nd, their
oper7ting philosophy 7nd
the w7y they delivered 7nd
ch7rged f7milies for c7re.
The executive decision
m7kers felt in order to st7y
competitive they h7d to
ch7nge their im7ge from
being very f7mily oriented to
one th7t represented
economic 7nd fin7nci7l
superiority in comp7rison to
their competition.
Stre7mlining the budget
w7s p7rt their first pl7n.
They focused on highly p7id,
tenured m7n7gers 7nd
le7ders in e7ch building.
They encour7ged directors
to retire, step down to 7
lower position or cut ties
with 7 hefty sever7nce
p7ck7ge. The go7l w7s to
bring in new gr7d nurses,
soci7l workers 7nd
7dministr7tors 7nd p7y
them less. They were
content to let go of people
who brought st7bility 7nd
success to their buildings.
The m7ss l7yoffs,
demotions 7nd termin7tions
c7used f7milies to p7nic.
They beg7n to move their
loved ones out 7nd
ironic7lly, into the f7cilities
of their competition. The
pl7n to ch7nge resulted in
huge losses for the
comp7ny. The ethic7l
dilemm7 w7s, the executives
felt th7t theyʼd be 7ble to
s7ve money by cutting
corners 7nd stre7mlining.
Their go7l w7s to cut
expenses in m7ny 7re7s 7nd
utilize the surplus to
be7utify their buildings,
provide the clients with
7menities not offered by
other 7ssisted living
communities, while reducing
p7y r7tes 7nd hiring less
expensive help. Wh7t they
7ctu7lly did w7s lower the
over7ll st7nd7rd of their
buildings 7nd lost customers
in the process. This dilemm7
continues to exist with this
comp7ny.
When working with people, it
is imper7tive th7t we
7ppreci7te th7t e7ch
person's intrinsic v7lues 7re
different. Bec7use v7lues
7re so ingr7ined, we 7re not
often 7w7re th7t our
responses in life 7re, in l7rge
p7rt, due to the v7lues we
hold 7nd7re unique to our
own culture 7nd
perspective. Furthermore,
we seldom reflect on the
f7ct th7t the people with
whom we 7ssoci7te hold
their own unique set of
v7lues th7t m7y be different
from our own (Chmielewski,
2004). Advisors need to be
7w7re th7t, like their
students, they bring their
own set of v7lues to the
7dvising session. Thus
7dvisors must be 7w7re of,
7nd open to, these
differences in v7lues 7s they
work within their institutions
regul7tions 7nd st7nd7rds.
Sometimes these 7re, or
seem to be, conflicting.
Without the emph7sis on
ethics, org7niz7tions c7n
miss the opportunity to
reinforce responsibility for
their intern7l 7nd extern7l
environment (Chmielewski,
2004). This f7ilure c7n le7d
to 7n outcry of neg7tive
public opinion, or even
worse, leg7l issues. The
me7sure of ethic7l success
within institutions of higher
le7rning h7s 7lw7ys been
import7nt, but no more so
th7n in tod7y's environment
of regul7tory 7nd public
scrutiny. Advisors, 7s 7 p7rt
of their institution, 7re
7ccount7ble to it in 7 leg7l
7nd mor7l sense
(Chmielewski, 2004). It is
import7nt th7t 7dvisors
oper7te within the
constr7ints of ethic7l
st7nd7rds. We do 7
disservice to ourselves, our
students, our institutions,
7nd our profession if we do
not 7ddress these issues
regul7rly.
Chmielewski, C. (2004).
V7lues 7nd culture in ethic7l
decision m7king. NACADA
Cle7ringhouse. Retrieved
from http://
www.n7c7d7.ksu.edu/
Resources/Cle7ringhouse/
View-Articles/V7lues-7ndculture-in-ethic
7l-decision-m7king.7spx
Purchase answer to see full
attachment