Summary Of The O Malley Dilemma
The O’Malley dilemma occurs when a guy named Harry O'Malley who is the director of a nonprofit organization called Health Planning Team (HPT), is encountered with a combative member of the board, who begins to make improper demands that are placed upon Harry. This member on the board also happens to be the chair of the board and his boss. Subject of dispute associated with conflict of interest, and members being taking advantage of. Harry has to make a tough decisions on whether he should blow the whistle on the chair of the board (Louise) or does he bit his tongue and let this continue to go on. One path could lead to saving the organization from unethical and potentially illegal actions. While the other path could lead to the board turning
…show more content…
A quorum is characterize as the least amount of representatives of an organization who can formally join to deliberate issues and vote on outcomes. Though in this case study, the members of the board made a decision without a good amount of the board positions being filled. The board was 3-1 in favor of the Human Services which is unethical. Their board was originally made of 6 members’ (3 from Human Services and 3 from the university) but 2 resigned. The two that resigned just so happened to be a part of the University, so when voting for Louise’s new position it is safe to say that the one who did not vote for her was from the university. This is unethical and I do not believe that this reaches the …show more content…
From the case study it was stated that “Louise secured de facto control of HPT holding a 3-1 majority on the board and explicit supervisory responsibility for the new director.” We can conclude from this statement that Louise only had control of the board because there was less members than originally. The University had 2 of their members resign meaning that there was only 1 remaining for the time being. Seeing that there are 3 members from Human Services, it is safe to say that they were the three that voted. On the other hand, by the time Harry goes into the board meeting at the end, the university fills its two vacant board positions. With the board being back to 6, having 3 Human Services and 3 university members, there is a chance that he doesn’t get fired because of the even
A quorum is characterize as the least amount of representatives of an organization who can formally join to deliberate issues and vote on outcomes. Though in this case study, the members of the board made a decision without a good amount of the board positions being filled. The board was 3-1 in favor of the Human Services which is unethical. Their board was originally made of 6 members’ (3 from Human Services and 3 from the university) but 2 resigned. The two that resigned just so happened to be a part of the University, so when voting for Louise’s new position it is safe to say that the one who did not vote for her was from the university. This is unethical and I do not believe that this reaches the …show more content…
From the case study it was stated that “Louise secured de facto control of HPT holding a 3-1 majority on the board and explicit supervisory responsibility for the new director.” We can conclude from this statement that Louise only had control of the board because there was less members than originally. The University had 2 of their members resign meaning that there was only 1 remaining for the time being. Seeing that there are 3 members from Human Services, it is safe to say that they were the three that voted. On the other hand, by the time Harry goes into the board meeting at the end, the university fills its two vacant board positions. With the board being back to 6, having 3 Human Services and 3 university members, there is a chance that he doesn’t get fired because of the even