Organizational Culture And Climate On Group Process And Team Building – Servant Leaders Essay Example

As the head of the ED, I am particularly interested in this subject, as there has recently been an uptick in medication mistakes. Some meetings were held to discuss the issue of pharmaceutical mistakes even though no formal committee was formed. I believe creating an ad hoc committee is the best way to deal with drug mistakes in all areas. Respiratory and pharmacy departments should be included in the ad hoc committee because they have access to the drug distribution system. Stakeholders include the patients, the nurse administering the drug, department heads, the pharmacy staff, and finally, the CNO.

It is necessary to clarify the distinctions between culture and climate to appropriately address the committee’s culture, climate, and outcomes. In other words, an organization’s culture may be described as a set of shared principles and practices that operate as a moral compass for its employees. For example, my hospital is a Christian-based, non-profit organization that serves the community. Patients are treated with Christ’s instruction as the foundation of our purpose. As a result, our society is rooted in religion, and this is a permanent and unchanging part of it. An active member of the 7th-day Adventist church must ascend to the “C-suite” of an organization. In addition, the cafeteria does not offer any form of pork or seafood, such as shrimp. As a Catholic hospital, we adhere to the same set of rules and regulations as the rest of the Catholic Church. Workers’ conduct is influenced by their attributes and workplace environment (Potnuru et al., 2018). However, not everyone is a fan of the religious overtones and open prayer at every huddle and meeting at the hospital.

Openness and the freedom to express oneself are essential for the committee’s success. A “knee-jerk response” was what the CNO in my hospital planned to do to all staff members who made prescription mistakes. The pharmacy director, on the other hand, disagreed. They both had a unique perspective on the problem and two different plans for resolving it. Finding out what the root cause is and then taking steps to prevent it is sometimes a better first step than enforcing discipline. There has to be an agreement between the CNO and the pharmacy director on dealing with pharmaceutical mistakes. It was determined that the greatest mistakes occurred in a certain department at a specific time of day and that there was a clear trend among the nurses. The physician’s method of prescribing medicine was a factor, and most mistakes happened at two open drug dispensing stations during busy periods. Medical-Surgical (MS), Emergency Department (ED), and the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) all had them, although they were not all kept up (ICU). Overwhelmingly, the nurses admitted to being distracted or hurried due to their hectic schedules. The available drug dispensing machine would now have an “off limits box” taped around it (Potnuru et al., 2018). No one could approach the nurse while she was in there. During the time the person is inside the box distributing medication, no one should bother, talk to, or otherwise distract them.

Medication mistakes were considerably decreased as a result of this. The nurses were also instructed to spend extra time reading the physician’s order and to print out the order form if there were more than two drugs. Staff briefings were held in every department to reaffirm the expectations around drug delivery procedures. Repeat offenders will be subject to a drug test and, if a narcotic is involved, a suspension and, at the very least, a written reprimand. Disciplinary action should not be the initial response to a policy violation, especially as critical as medicine administration. By organizing a committee with all of the stakeholders engaged, the staff can observe how well everyone works together to solve problems. Employees are appreciative and understanding of the openness and fairness created by this policy. Patient safety should always be at the top of any organization’s culture and atmosphere.


Potnuru, R. K. G., Sahoo, C. K., & Sharma, R. (2018). Team building, employee empowerment and employee competencies: Moderating role of organizational learning culture. European Journal of Training and Development.

The Moral Obligation To Be A Whistleblower Essay Example

Whistleblowing is the process by which an employee communicates the illegal and immoral activities of the organization to the public. The employee identifies the action and gathers the relevant facts. Informing the authorities of illegal activity ensures the overall well-being of the organization and society. Most organizations view whistleblowing as an illegal act that compromises the organization’s image. Employees have a moral obligation to identify illegal and immoral activities within the organization and report them to the relevant authorities.

Conditions under Which an Employee Has a Moral Obligation to Be a Whistleblower

The employee has a moral obligation to be a whistleblower if they realize that the firms’ actions will result in serious and considerable harm to other employees or society. Whistleblowing is a professional responsibility of the employee to society (Shaw, 2017). The organization aims to meet some of the social needs and make profits. Employees have their families and friends who might get affected by the organization’s irresponsible actions. For example, an employee might notice that the organization lacks a proper waste disposal mechanism. In addition, the organization directs most of its waste into the local river that the residents rely on for basic use. In such an instance, the employee realizes that the wastes directed to the river will have adverse health effects on the locals. The employee weighs between the organization and the community. The employee will have a moral obligation to raise the issue with the local authorities for action. If the employees keep quiet on the issue, the community gets affected and may develop health issues. It would be better for the employee to raise the issue and have the organization closed instead of letting the entire community get affected by the company’s irresponsibility.

Employees can consider whistleblowing if they are sure that the management or the authorities will take relevant actions to address the highlighted issue. The organization’s management might be unwilling to address a certain immoral issue within the organization. When an employee realizes that the management supports the illegal actions of the organization and that the local authorities are less likely to take action, it would not be justifiable to raise the issue openly (Shaw, 2017). Such an employee should consider quitting the organization and seeking employment elsewhere if they feel that their career development is affected by the organization’s activities. The process of offering a remedy to an immoral act is an important consideration for the whistleblower. It would be immoral for the employee to fail to highlight particular malpractice by the organization when they are sure that speaking out will result in the organization giving up on the malpractice.

The employee has a moral obligation to be a whistleblower if they have compelling evidence that there are ongoing wrongful actions in the organization. In addition, the employer can raise an issue that occurred at one moment if such an issue is likely to affect the management, other employees, or the community adversely. Whistleblowing should not be made based on allegations (Shaw, 2017). The whistleblower must have the facts supporting their claims and be willing to prove to the management or authorities that their claims are true. The facts should include the nature of the wrongful act, the dates it occurred, the parties involved, and transactions. The whistleblower should avoid general statements that might make the case ambiguous. Being specific will help the authorities or the management address the issue swiftly and adequately. In addition, having the relevant evidence will be necessary for arguing the case in instances where the employee is victimized by the organization for whistleblowing.

If the employee has exhausted all the internal mechanisms set to address malpractice in the organization and the management has failed to take any action to address the issue, the employee has a moral obligation to be a whistleblower. They can consider reporting to the local authorities and highlight all the relevant facts concerning the case. Employees have a duty to maintain loyalty to the organization (Shaw, 2017). Loyalty involves making attempts to have issues settled internally before making them public. If the internal departments can handle the issue, the employee is prohibited from taking it up with the outside authorities. In some instances, management-sponsored malpractice cannot be handled internally. Employees have a moral obligation to report such issues to the authorities. If the risk associated with whistleblowing is significant, the employee should consider reporting anonymously.

When employees are confident that they have an appropriate moral motive, they are obligated to be whistleblowers. There must be an honest desire to expose unnecessary harm resulting from the organization’s malpractice (Shaw, 2017). The employees should ensure that their intention to expose the malpractice is not motivated by the desire to revenge or tarnish the name of the organization. Whistleblowing should be done with the intention to ensure the well-being of society and the organization. The employee should consider the objectives and goals of the organization before making a decision to be a whistleblower. They should first ensure that the malpractice will result in the organization’s goals not being met. The motive of the whistleblower should be to ensure the overall employee, management, and community wellbeing.

An Analysis of Different Positions

One might argue that employees should learn to differentiate their assigned roles and organizational oversight. There are contracts regulating the relationships between the employees and the organizations. Most organizations do not allow employees to report internal issues to the authorities. With different clauses regulating the employees’ conduct, one can argue that it is immoral for the employees to be whistleblowers. Employees should consider protecting themselves and their interests in the organization (Shaw, 2017). Raising the organization’s issues with the management may result in the victimization of the employee. To avoid confrontations with the management, the employees should avoid being whistleblowers. This argument is invalidated by the notion that organizations have a corporate social responsibility. The organization has a responsibility to ensure the well-being of society, including that of the employees. Wrongdoing within the organization adversely affects the employees and the community. Reporting such issues is one way of promoting corporate social responsibility.

Employees have a duty to maintain loyalty to the organization. The management might consider whistleblowing as a breach of the requirement to remain loyal and might initiate disciplinary actions against employees who act as whistleblowers. Workers who subordinate the organization’s interests to outside parties are subject to forced relocations, dismissals, and demotion from the status (Shaw, 2017). To avoid such issues, the employees need to consider concentrating on their assigned roles instead of whistleblowing. These arguments are not satisfactory to discourage employees’ whistleblowing. Different countries have laws that protect whistleblowers in organizations. If an employee spots malpractice that is likely to harm the community or the employees, they can anonymously report the issue and avoid any actions from the management. If the whistleblower is found out by the management, they can raise the issue with the authorities and request protection against victimization by the organization.

The good intention to save the organization and society from wrongdoing might land the employee in trouble. The employee has to consider their job and the families that depend on them for survival. Safeguarding ones’ job should be the priority of every employee (Shaw, 2017). One can argue that the duty to investigate malpractices should be left to the organization’s quality assurance and the authorities.

Employees should stick to their assigned roles, and if they feel they are not comfortable in the organization, they can seek employment elsewhere. This argument is wrong in that it disregards the well-being of society. If employees leave the organization in search of another, they may find that the new organization has some form of malpractices. Such actions will create a culture of irresponsibility in society.

Overall, employees have a moral obligation to highlight issues that might cause harm to the organization or the community and communicate them to the relevant authorities. In whistleblowing, the employees should ensure that they have the relevant facts concerning the case and that their intentions are morally supported. However, employees should consider the implications of whistleblowing and make informed choices of whether to whistleblow or not. One might argue that employees have a duty to maintain loyalty to the organization and keep the organization’s issues a secret. Such a culture will, however, promote a culture of social irresponsibility.


Shaw, W., 2017. Business ethics. 9th ed. Boston: Cengage.

The International War On Wildlife Crimes University Essay Example

There are increased cases of wildlife crimes in the world. Trafficking of wildlife is among the internationally organized crimes that threaten the existence of different plants and animal species. In dealing with the crime, the international organizations consider the markets associated with wildlife products and the areas where animal poaching is rampant. Efforts by international organizations have been less effective in the fight against wildlife crimes. There is a need to assess the nature of the wildlife crimes and the various efforts of fighting the crimes with the aim of developing possible solutions to the issue of the international war on wildlife crimes.

The lack of investment by some countries in measures that seek to reduce wildlife crime is a matter of international concern. The United Nations, out of concern, declared the illicit trade of flora and fauna as a serious transnational crime (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2008). In most instances, this type of environmental crime is organized and executed by influential individuals, making it difficult for the authorities to take appropriate actions. Some developing nations are slow to conduct investigations and apprehend criminals involved in this type of trade. As a result, there is a slow global reaction on the issue of wildlife crimes.

Although the United Nations declared the illicit trade a matter of concern, it is essential to ask ourselves what the international body did to address the issue. The majority of the developing nations are yet to address economic issues, and others are still facing serious issues of political instability. For instance, there is a need to assist these countries financially to help them address the issue of wildlife crimes. In addition, the international police should forge relationships with the local law enforcers to address the issue of powerful individuals who the respective countries might be reluctant to prosecute.

Typically, some communities view wildlife crimes as a low-priority issue. As a result. There are less incentives to develop measures that address illegal poaching and other activities such as the ivory trade. Criminals take advantage of the situation to organize and execute their illegal activities (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2008). Selling animal skins and other products is highly profitable and less risky for the offenders. This phenomenon answers the question of the incentives that motivate wildlife crimes. In some other nations, poachers are less worried about getting arrested as they are assured of bribing their way out. In other instances, the offenders manage to smuggle the products into different countries by bribing the law enforcers.

Another factor facilitating wildlife crimes is the availability of markets for animal products. China, for instance, offers the largest market for tiger and leopard skins (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2008). The skins are locally used for home decor and clothing. There are reports that visitor in china buys animal skins and smuggle them out in bags with less fear of getting intercepted by the authorities (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2008). Reports further indicate that most of the illegal animal products available in China are sourced from Nepal and India through the ancient trade routes.

The issue of one nation offering markets for products deemed as illegal is confusing in the war against wildlife crimes. One might, for instance, wonder what the international community has to say about China for relaxing its laws to allow such trades. If there were no market for the products, poachers would be less motivated to kill wild animals. In addition, if all the countries united efforts in monitoring the wildlife and enhancing border surveillance, criminals would be afraid to transport illegal animal products. China’s activities cast doubts over the world’s determination to end wildlife crimes.

The porous border makes it easier for the illicit wildlife trade to take place. International organizations can, however, do much to handle such situations. For example, the intelligence agencies across the nations and the international police should cooperate in gathering information about the origin of the animal products in transit and handle the respective governments into account. There could be a possibility that even though few known nations openly disregard the international guidelines on wildlife, some of the developed nations are taking part in the trade. Intelligence would help identify such nations and develop stricter measures to address the situation in the respective countries.

Some of the criminals involved in poaching and handling wildlife products have been arrested and prosecuted from the time the United Nations proposed stricter measures to deal with the wildlife crimes. However, the methods have not been effective as some of the criminals arrested are released on bail (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2008). With the experience they have, the criminals go on to commit similar crimes or aid smugglers in executing their missions. The repeated offences make the vice dangerous as the perpetrators are more experienced, and in most cases, they outsmart the law enforcers.

The easiness of repeating the wildlife crimes raises questions about the nature of laws to control the endangered species. For instance, lawmakers should consider categorizing wildlife crimes as among the most serious crimes in the country. However, categorizing such crimes as the most serious may mean that the criminals are mishandled, and in some instances, they may be denied bail. One might argue that the measures are keener on observing animal rights than human rights. The governments need to consider a balance between the rights of animals and those of human beings. Criminals associated with wildlife crimes should for, instance, be put under house arrest until their cases are heard and determined instead of allowing them out on bail. The process will be effective in preventing repeat offences.

The data shared nationally involves isolated cases of wildlife crimes. It is rare to have a joint statement from international findings of related wildlife crimes (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2008). The lack of international coordination in investigations is a sign that there could be an organized transnational criminal network that oversees the execution of wildlife crimes and that the network involves powerful individuals who can easily avoid the international police dragnet. Tightening the international laws and regulations would be critical in dealing with police officers who witness wildlife crimes and do less about it.

Organized crime groups are flexible and can easily change their activities to circumvent the laws regulating wildlife crimes. These groups of people are well connected in society and have the backing of some of the most prominent people in the community. Any efforts by the authorities to reduce the criminals’ profits are met with a new behavior that ensures that criminals do not get out of the illegal trade market (“United Nations”, 2020). Different countries have different policies that regulate illicit trade. Criminals take advantage of the legal differences and major their activities in areas where the legal requirements are less strict.

Illicit wildlife markets are like any other markets in terms of the forces driving the demands and prices of the products. Increased surveillance and tightened laws regulating the illicit wildlife trade result in increased product prices (“United Nations”, 2020). The increased prices explain why illegal activities are on the rise in the least developed nations and some developed countries. There are high returns associated with the trade, which motivates more people to join the illegal market. The explanation leads to the question of what needs to be done to ensure equal international measures to curb the rising wildlife crimes.

It is observed that when one geographical area tightens the laws regulating wildlife, criminals shift their activities to countries where regulations are less strict. Joint efforts by the world governments would ensure that there are no places for criminals to conduct their activities. If the penalties are the same across the nations and the measures to curb the crimes are harmonized, there would be no market for the products. Heightening border security worldwide will be a critical step towards reducing the transportation of the products and reducing wildlife crimes.

Other than the desire to make profits, some people kill the wild animals for personal use or consider them as a nuisance. In most cases, residents engage in retaliatory killings of animals such as lions, elephants, and leopards (Pires & Moreto, 2016). An animal might, for instance, get out of the restricted areas and invade the public killing domestic animals and destroying crops. People, out of anger, engage and kill the animal. Most of these activities are ignored by the law enforcers who might agree with the residents’ actions.

In a situation where residents kill animals as a retaliatory measure, there are questions on who is to blame. On one side, the authorities are to blame for failing to restrict the animals into their respective areas. On the other hand, the residents should be blamed for engaging in the animal’s killing. Enlightening the public about animal rights and reminding people how to react to animal invasion would be a step toward preserving wildlife.

Overall, the efforts by international organizations to address wildlife crimes have not produced the desired effects. Despite the heightened surveillance, criminals still take advantage of the legal lapses to engage in wildlife trafficking. Some countries have been reluctant to address the issue, while others lack the resources to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. Corruption is one of the primary threats to the fight against the international war on wildlife crimes. Nations across the world need to collaborate and form a joint response on the issue of wildlife crimes.


Environmental Investigation Agency. (2008). ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME; A threat to our future. London.

United Nations. (2020).

Pires, S., & Moreto, W. (2016). The Illegal Wildlife Trade. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhbs/9780199935383.013.161