Mancorp Organization - Essay Example

? Topic essays Supervisor: May 12, Topic essays Advice to Mancorp Board of Directors regarding strategies, policies, and programs designed to prevent experienced liabilities Mancorp has recently experienced human relations problems and suffered financial liabilities across its geographical areas of operation. The company has been forced to pay compensation to its employees who have suffered from sexual discrimination and sexual harassment within the organization’s structure. The organization’s executives have also faced criminal charges for cases of fraudulent misrepresentation of financial information. I explore the basis of the organization’s problems into the liabilities and offer strategies, policies, and programs designed to prevent experienced liabilities from occurring in future. The organization’s records illustrate a high level of liability that can have adverse effect on its financial position and corporate image. High compensation rates can strain the organization’s liquidity and retained profit while poor corporate image has the potential of reducing an organization’s revenue level. Extreme cases of legal liability in executives’’ criminal activities may also force the organization out of business through closure by court order. The problems in the organization that leads to these liabilities however relate to poor organizational behavior that allows illegal and unethical practices among top managerial staff. Sexual harassment and sexual discrimination can for example thrive if the immediate management level approves of it or is involved it because an otherwise position would ensure ethical and legal behaviors. Crimes of fraud among top executives also means that the organization lacks internal forum for ensuring ethical practice among its top managers and this weakness has been transferred to lower managerial levels of the organization’s structure. Mancorp needs to change its organizational culture into an ethical institution that is guided by acculturated moral values among its members at different levels. I recommend two strategies for changing the organization’s culture to one whose practices will eliminate the current legal liabilities. “Positive reinforcement” is my preferred strategy (Luneburg and Ornstein 204). It involves application of a stimulus after a desirable outcome and it would motivate members of the organization towards changing their attitudes and behaviors. Offering rewards to managers whose departments register lower reported cases of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination and promoting those whose departments succeeds in mitigating the harassment and discrimination cases are examples of stimuli for the strategy. The approach can also be applied to mitigating fraud in the organization. The reinforcement strategy may however fail and I recommend punitive approach as a supplementary strategy. This strategy involves application of a negative stimulus to an unwanted behavior such as suspending a manager who is found guilty of harassment, discrimination, or fraud. The two strategies will facilitate change in organizational culture (Luneburg and Ornstein 204, 205). The organization should develop and implement a rule-based policy to achieving the proposed culture. It should for example develop code of ethics and conduct that denounce sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and fraud. The policy should further outline penalties for breaching outlaid codes. Further, the organization should organize training sessions for its employees, on ethical practices, and promote awareness on integrity, honesty, and respect of persons. Experts on organizational change can for example facilitate the training sessions. Application of these strategies, policy, and training program will ensure change and eliminate the liabilities. Mike Miller’s case The case involves Mike who purchased an automobile from Mountainside Audi dealership in Colorado. He left the state for New York but was involved in an accident in Indiana. Johnson, a New Jersey resident struck Tom’s Audi and Mike’s automobile caught fire in the process. Mike suffered significant and permanent injuries and has since learnt that the Audi automobile model has a design defect that increases its vulnerability to accidents. The automobile’s manufacturer, International Inc. is a registered company in the state of Delaware. The case involves parties from different states. Mike is considered a Colorado resident and the seller is from the same state. Johnson whose vehicle caused the accident into Mike’s injury is a resident of New Jersey State while the Audi manufacturer is incorporated in Delaware State. Difference in the parties’ states of residence means that geographical jurisdiction of state courts cannot apply to the case. This is because state courts can only handle cases that fall within their local states and cases that involve residents of the states in which the courts are located. The parties are however, residents of three different courts and this identifies jurisdiction of the federal courts. Under the circumstance, the “subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts” applies under the doctrine of “diversity of citizenship” (Kerley and Hames 36). The doctrine establishes such a jurisdiction when privity parties to a case are residents of different states or when the case involves a claim of more than $ 75000 (Kerley and Hames 36). Mike may identify negligence as a cause of action against Johnson and against International Inc. Negligence defines a breach of a duty of care that a party owes to another leading to legal injury. Its scope identifies elements that a plaintiff must proof in order to recover damages and one of the essential elements is a duty of care that must be legally recognized. While some contracts induce duty of care, a person is generally expected to exercise care towards safety of people around him or her. Breach of the legal duty of care is another essential element of negligence that a plaintiff must prove. Finally, there must be proof of damage that result from the breach of duty of care. In the case, Johnson collided with Tom’s car and this directly affected Mike’s car and caused the fire. While Johnson owed a duty of care to all road users, he breached the duty of care and this led to the permanent injury that Mike suffered (Miller 82). The doctrine “Res Ipsa Loquitor” as a proof of negligence also identifies potential liability of International Inc. in the case. According to the doctrine, occurrence of an event that can, in ordinary situations, only happen if there is negligence, establishes liability unless the defendant can prove that there was no breach of a duty of care. Development of a risky model when the manufacturer is aware of the involved risk means that the doctrine applies and Mike can succeed in a negligence suit against International Inc. (Miller 86). Works cited Kerley, Peggy, and Hames, Joanne. Civil Litigation. New York, NY: Cengage Learning, 2008, Print. Luneburg, Fredrick, and Ornstein, Allan. Educational administration: Concepts and practices. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Miller, Roger. Fundamentals of business law: Excerpted cases. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Read More