It is suggested that ethics are an integral dimension of any organisation and its success. although Good Heart Hospital is a public entity and not a commercial one, it is an ''organisation'' ; therefore it has an ethical dimension that should be inherent to its position in society
variuos stakeholders are affected by the operatios of Good Heart Hospital. in fact, the hospital as an organisation relies on the relationship it has with the stakeholders for its success. organisations, after all, consist of people, who ultimately deal with people.
management made the decision to award a tender to Foodbiz ( for the supply of meal ingredients ) and one to MediMealz ( for the hospital preparation) however, it turned out that both these suppliers provide inferior quality of service, not least because the owner of both businesses is the brother of the hospital CEO. these two companies appear to have been awarded the tenders not because they provide a proper service, but because of the owners ( secret) family relationship with the CEO. accordingly , it is concluded that the management of Good Heart Hospital did not consider ethics when it comes to the awarding of the two tenders
required: (i) discuss in details how relational nature of business may fail in Good Heart Hospital because of management's use of Foodbiz and MediMealz as suppliers. specifically your discussion should focus on the importance of ethics in the relationships between Good Heart Hospital and its Stakeholders, and how the Foodbiz and MediMealz tenders inflict damage on these relationships
(ii) include in your discussion one example of how each of the stakeholders ( patients, government and regulators, employees, communities, suppliers and taxpayers) could be impacted because of the hospital making use of these two suppliers
(i) The relational nature of business at Good Heart Hospital may fail because of the management's decision to use Foodbiz and MediMealz as suppliers in an unethical manner. In any organisation, the relationships with stakeholders are crucial for its success. Ethical considerations play a significant role in maintaining and nurturing these relationships. When the hospital awarded tenders to suppliers based on family connections rather than quality of service, it undermined the trust and integrity of the relationships with various stakeholders.
- Patients: Patients rely on the hospital to provide them with quality care and services. When the hospital compromises on the quality of meal ingredients and preparation, it directly affects the patients' well-being. Poor quality meals can lead to health issues and dissatisfaction among patients, ultimately damaging the reputation of the hospital.
- Government and regulators: Government and regulators expect organisations, especially public entities like hospitals, to operate ethically and transparently. By awarding tenders to suppliers based on familial relationships rather than fair and competitive processes, the hospital may face scrutiny and potential regulatory consequences. This can harm its reputation and credibility in the eyes of authorities.
- Employees: Employees of Good Heart Hospital rely on the organisation for fair treatment, ethical practices, and a positive work environment. When management engages in nepotism and unethical practices, it can lead to employee morale issues, lack of trust in leadership, and potential unrest among staff. This can impact productivity, teamwork, and overall employee satisfaction.
- Communities: The community surrounding Good Heart Hospital expects the organisation to be a responsible and ethical member of the community. When the hospital prioritises personal relationships over the well-being of the community members by providing inferior quality services, it can lead to a loss of trust and support from the local community. This can have long-term implications for the hospital's relationship with the community and its social standing.
- Suppliers: Utilising suppliers based on nepotism rather than merit can damage the relationships with other potential suppliers who may feel unfairly treated. This can lead to a lack of trust, strained relationships, and a negative reputation among suppliers in the industry. It can also impact the hospital's ability to secure quality suppliers in the future.
- Taxpayers: Taxpayers who fund public entities like Good Heart Hospital expect their tax dollars to be used ethically and effectively. When the hospital misuses public funds by awarding tenders based on personal connections rather than value for money, it can lead to public outcry, criticism, and potential financial implications for the organisation. This can erode trust and support from taxpayers who expect their money to be used for the greater good.
(ii) For example, patients at Good Heart Hospital may suffer from health issues due to poor quality meals provided by Foodbiz and MediMealz, leading to dissatisfaction and potential complaints. Government and regulators may investigate the hospital for unethical practices, resulting in fines or penalties that could impact the hospital's financial status. Employees may experience decreased morale and disengagement due to the lack of transparency and fairness in the awarding of tenders, leading to potential turnover and workforce issues. Communities surrounding the hospital may lose trust in the organisation, leading to decreased support and engagement in community initiatives. Suppliers who were overlooked in favour of Foodbiz and MediMealz may refuse to work with the hospital in the future, impacting the hospital's ability to secure quality suppliers. Taxpayers may question the hospital's use of public funds and demand accountability for the unethical practices, potentially leading to a loss of public support and funding for the hospital.