Reference no: EM133100900

Part 1

As the newly placed manager of the admitting department, it didn't take long to discover that morale in the department had been low for quite some time. As you worked to become acquainted with employees by meeting with each of them alone, you were rapidly inundated with complaints and other evidence of discontent. Most complaints involved problems with administration and the business office and with the loose admitting practices of a few physicians. There also were complaints from the admitting staff about other department members and some thinly veiled charges about admitting personnel who "carry tales to administration."

In listening to the problems you detected a number of common themes. You decided that most misunderstandings could be cleared up by airing the gripes openly with the entire group. You then scheduled a staff meeting and asked all employees to prepare to air their complaints (except those involving specific other staff members) at the meeting. Most employees thought this was a good idea, and several assured you they would speak up. You were encouraged by what you heard; it seemed as though most employees were of a similar mind, indicating something of a team outlook. However, your first staff meeting was extremely brief; when offered the opportunity to air their complaints, nobody spoke.

The results were the same at the next staff meeting two weeks later, although in the intervening period you were bombarded with complaints from individuals. This experience left you frustrated because many of the complaints you heard were problems of the group rather than problems of individuals

• What can you do to get this group to open up about what is bothering them?
• What should you consider doing to get this department on track to becoming an effective team? Identify at least two significant actions, and explain why they should be considered.
• How would you approach the specific problem of the employees who supposedly "carry tales to administration"?

Part 2

Dan Carey, director of facility operations, was meeting with Arthur Brooks, engineering supervisor, about the possible need to soon identify one or two employees from engineering for possible layoff. Layoffs were not new to the hospital, having occurred twice over the previous 3 years.

Dan said, "I'm new to this place. What did you do the last time there were layoffs?"

Arthur answered, "We were given a sort of scale to use for comparing people. It gave roughly equal weight to four factors-basic job qualifications, seniority, performance evaluations, and what I'd guess you'd call conduct."

"What's that?"

"It involves warnings and suspensions and such for violating hospital policy," Arthur said. "You know, like a written warning for being late too many times."

Dan said, "I don't see how we're going to escape losing at least one person in this next cutback. I want you to make sure the one we lose is Fredericks."

"He's been here a long time," Arthur said, "lots longer than most. Offhand, I don't see how to make him fit the criteria."

"You make him fit," Dan said. "You and I both know he's one of the biggest goof-offs in the hospital and our least productive worker. We can't help it that past management didn't do what they should have done."

"Should have," Arthur said, "but didn't."

Dan shook his head vigorously. "We've got tons of work-order history that proves he's our least productive person."

"But not a negative word in his file," said Arthur.

Dan Carey and Arthur Brooks discussed Fredericks and his situation for a quarter of an hour. Their positions are summarized as follows:

Dan: "We shouldn't have to keep the worst employee of the whole lot over all the others. We have no union here so there's no contract to make us observe seniority. If I have to then I can prove he's the least productive person. It's a legitimate layoff-the hospital has got to reduce staff-and this is a lot easier and cleaner way of dealing with Fredericks than going through a whole long, drawn-out process that someone else should have followed long ago."

Arthur: "Laying off Fredericks is risky. Seniority has always been a major factor in determining who gets laid off here; it's an established policy. You might be able to prove he's our least productive person, but there's no file we can open up and use to prove that he ever knew how he was doing. There's only a bunch of average evaluations. He might be the one who really deserves to go, but this isn't the way to get him out of here.

• Consider the positions of Arthur Brooks and Dan Carey as alternatives for addressing the potential impact on Fredericks. Which alternative are you more willing to support, and why?
• Fredericks reports to Arthur who, in turn, reports to Dan. Imagine that Arthur has recommended against laying off Fredericks and, instead, has recommended laying off the department's newest member. Dan, however, chooses to reject Arthur's recommendation and directs him to lay off Fredericks. If you found yourself in Arthur's position, how would you proceed?