Table of Contents
Corporate governance is a package of systems, procedures, and principles through which a corporation or an institution is governed. Such procedures and principles provide vital guidelines in the manner the corporation will be directed and managed in pursuit of full compliance with its defined objectives. This makes it eminently possible for the company’s value addition to the benefit of the aggregate stakeholders of the respective corporation. Such stakeholders may include internal stakeholders, for instance, employees; as well as external stakeholders, such as the society where the enterprise is based. Consequently, the institution’s management takes up the trustee role on behalf of the entire platform of the stakeholders.
Owing to the fact that the management works on behalf of all the other stakeholders, it calls for ethical responsibilities in the deliverance of the service as appertaining to the code of objective of the entire institution. As a result, corporate governance is enshrined under the arch principles of Integrity and Fairness, Transparency, Compliance, with the laws and regulations of practice and the general commitment to the undertaking business in an ethically acceptable manner. This paper therefore focuses on the analysis of some requisites of corporate governance and the enhancement of ethical principles within the working environment with the main objective of achieving the business goal. Good corporate governance enhances an irrefutable level of confidence with respect to the customers’ wit and perception towards the enterprise. In this regard, the paper will explore the management in a hospital setting with respect to Dr. DoRight in his management of the hospital operations amidst a pool of challenges.
Main Stakeholders that Dr. DoRight May have to deal with on a Daily Basis
In any hospital setting, there are various parties to whom the management remains liable to cohesive interaction with I service offering and reception. These parties lie within and without the hospital environment. As a result they are categorized into either, internal and external stakeholders respectively. In line with these, Dr. DoRight is not an exemption within the hospital. These include the patients or society members and the staffs. In absolute terms, Dr DoRight should bear the absolute responsibility of ensuring better and affordable healthcare through proper adherence to the staff ethics in operations at the benefit of the clients. This includes timely attendance to patients and mutual respect for human life. By virtue of this move, the hospital ensures that the patients are attended to at the right time, as well as allowing sufficient classical hospital facilities and the ability to meet the needs of all clients. This may however take a wider perspective.
Indeed, the staffs’ devotion to their duties sums up the selflessness of the physicians therein and the willingness to exalt human life. Furthermore, the achievement of such a scenario is pegged on the existing coherence between the hospital management and the body of employees at stake. As a matter of facts, Dr. DoRight is therefore responsible for the supervision of the various tasks through a one on one basis with minimal if any delegation of supervision. This enhances staffs’ morale and confidence as the management lead the procession to the achievement of the set objectives. Additionally, the Dr DoRight is responsible for the provision of the requisite facilities for both the clients and the Staffs
Consequently, the management should therefore be on the forefront in the provision of necessary working equipments and other medical effects for the patients on a daily basis owing to the non-terminating patients’ influx. Besides this, DoRight ought to consider the doctors’ safety through provision of safety garget for the various operations with respect to their clients. These may include: daily supply of protective gears like the sniffing masks, gloves among others. This further enhances the morale of the staffs and boosts the quality of their output. Consequently, Dr Do Right must therefore accord the safety of the staffs due importance as this would lead to the improvement of services at the hospital and reduce the mortality rate in the long-run.
As a result, Dr DoRight must keep in touch with the suppliers of both the medical equipments and other support facilities that would boost the day to day services. This means timely tendering and settlement of payment of supplies. Most of the hospital equipments are non-renewable or not subject to sterilization. Consequently, there is a sharp need for consistent supply of not only medical supplies and support equipments but quality supplies in particular. As a result, Dr. DoRight must maintain strong viable relationship with the suppliers to ensure high quality supplies. The realization of this enhances the clients’ trust on the institutional credibility and viability.
In the discipline of healthcare however, quality is a complex and controversial terminology whose fate results from the different perception towards better healthcare. However, the absolute meaning of Quality is eminently immutable and not subject to distortion. For Dr. DoRight to maintain and upgrade the level of services at the Universal Human Care Hospital therefore, he must keep vigilant of the entire cycle of operations at the hospital premises with respect to: clients, staffs and the suppliers through mutual satisfaction with a view to enhancing high standard of services (Monks & Minow, 2004).
Potential Conflict of Interest that may occur between Internal and External Stakeholders
In the hospital settings, certain conflict of interests may occur at any given time with respect to individual demands of stakeholders within and without the hospital environment. In particular, conflicts of interest may take two distinct shapes. These are: between patients and the employers or service providers versus the payers. Indeed, it’s the patients’ expectations that the employer would offer varied options regarding their health coverage which can be accustomed to their individual needs. Furthermore, patients look forward for the employer to meet the greatest costs of their individual health insurance cover. Indeed, the general premise provides varied alternatives and the lowest out-of-pocket cost to its respective staffs. “On the contrary, the employers aim at mutual reduction of in the costs contribution. Otherwise, they advocate for the patients and employees in seeking the needed care only besides following the instructions of the providers and quick recovery. Additionally, the employers advocate for the patients to cut down on the consumption of health risk products such as diet and smoking cessation. The above trends results in contrasting conflict of interests between the two parties” (Rezaee, 2009).
On the other hand other conflicting parties eminent in the field are the providers and the payers. The service providers aim at providing the most accurate and particularly the best and most contemporary treatment. This quite often appears generally expensive. Furthermore, the providers also intend to deliver pre-emptive care. However, the insurance company which in essence is the payer may not be ready to pay for the same leading to protracted conflicts. “Additionally, payers demand that the service providers follow discrete and transparent evidence-based, diagnostic procedures to legitimize the payment and in the realization of an accurate diagnosis. This means accurate treatment plan with minimal visits and the lowest number of checkups possible. Such established code of demarcation results to a contextualized source of conflict for the parties involved” (Vallabhaneni & Association of Professionals in Business Management, 2008).
Contextual Implication of the Principle of Deontology and ethics
“According to the deontology principle, a sharp focus is given to the observance of independent moral codes of conduct with respect to the environment where the observer exists.” (Aras & Crowther, 2010). With respect to Dr. DoRight, the mutual observance of the social ethics of his doctors and nurses was inadequate, leading to increased rampancy of patients’ mortality. However, his move to curb the hazardous effect was less effective owing to minimal supervision of the procedure that was to be undertaken in addressing the challenge. As a matter of fact, the doctors’ and nurses’ negligence persisted, leading to continued loss of lives as a result. In summation, Universal Human Care Hospital suffered acute shortage of staff’s adherence to the principles underlying deontology by simply neglecting the laid down rules and regulations of duties. Dr. Doright failed to enforce regulations of practices from the existing ethical duty leading owing to his predicament.
Contextual implication of the Principle of Utilitarianism
“The principle of Utilitarianism further denotes that every action is irrefutably acceptable provided it does not contravene delivery of happiness or results, hence a teleological principle. According utilitarianism, the subject pleasure and pain are intent conditions which can be subjected to less or more quantification” (Vallabhaneni & Association of Professionals in Business Management, 2008). However, Dr. Doright contravened the principle by letting perpetration of pain and unhappiness and the consequent death of patients through purported negligence of his staffs under his custody. However, Dr. Doright is faced with a dilemma of making the most viable decision. As a result, he entrusts the director of Compliance and the Executive Committee with the task which later bore no fruits but resulted in the deterioration of standards.
In conclusion, the wholesome responsibility of the management is vital in the enhancement and realization of corporate governance through the engagement of all mechanisms necessary for the promotion and the realization of the company’s objective. Consequently, the management is exclusively responsible for the synchronization and perpetual coordination of the various stakeholders involved in pursuit of the corporation’s objective. As in Dr. DoRight’s case, particular stakeholders in the absence of corporate governance cannot work in isolation to deliver the core objective of the enterprises. Consequently, this indicates the irrefutable importance of a coordinated approach and supervision of the enterprise activities with a view to hasten the achievement of the set goals.