Case Study Wiley Riley, Frank Will Be Frank, and by whq15269

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 2

									          Case Study: Wiley Riley, Frank Will Be Frank, and Swim-Up Poo Bar

In Wiley Riley we found out that John did the right thing by not paying the bribe to keep
Sam Riley from holding up permits for the new swim-up pool bar that you read about in
Chapter 7. John also reported Sam Riley's attempted bribery to Riley's boss who assured
John the construction permits would be issued immediately. So, doing the right thing did
not result in holdups with construction as feared.

Even though FOI got the building permits right away, Riley's friends in the department
continued to harass FOI until Frank, the owner, intervened. (The harassment was
described in other sections of the case study.) In Frank Will Be Frank, John was
dismayed to see Sam Riley having drinks with Frank in the pool, thinking that Frank
must have just paid Riley off. We learn in Swim-Up Poo Bar that Frank did not in fact
pay off Riley, but instead solved the problem by having a chat with his golfing buddy, the
mayor.

There was no decision required in this segment of the case study. There was, however,
the issue of managers making fun of guests: coming up with nicknames for them and
laughing over it. This lack of respect can influence other workers and carry over into
disrespectful behavior with guests. What ethical principles were violated by this
management behavior and what are the possible negative consequences. This is not a
facilities management problem, of course, but a disrespectful attitude can permeate an
operation and is worth addressing.

The problem of Edna, the part-time accountant, spending company time in a "Friends,
Coping With Grief" chat room is addressed in Lesson 11.

Now we have a facilities management decision to make. The players in Swim-Up Poo
Bar are Frank, the owner, John, the G.M., and Bill Gardner, the Chief Engineer. Frank
spends a lot of time at the swim-up pool bar. He calls it his “office.” While he has no real
duties at FOI, he is still the owner and is treated as such by all the employees. Frank was
seated in his office one afternoon when a guest cried out, "EWWWWW! SOMEONE
WENT DO-DO IN THE POOL!!!"

Frank called John, who closed the pool immediately and radioed Bill Gardner. The three
met poolside to confer on how to handle the "contamination" of the pool. None of them
were sure exactly what public health laws dictated for the handling of this situation, but
no one thought draining the pool was an option except for Frank who thought of it as his
office. Bill thought that was ridiculous and jumped in and retrieved the offending object.
John said to Frank, "So, looks pretty good to me. You think we still need to drain the
pool?"

To drain, fill, and heat a good sized pool could take over a week. This could ruin guests'
vacations. John figured a more reasonable approach was probably to treat the water with
chemicals and then keep it shut down till the chemicals had a chance to work. While John
thought the health department might require this less drastic solution for their
predicament, he did not know for sure. The obvious thing to do is call the health
department and find out for sure what needs to be done. We should not be making
decisions without correct information.

We need to follow the rules, but John needs to know what the rules are. If law in fact
required it, they should, indeed, drain the pool and refill it without delay. Guests would
obviously be inconvenienced if unable to use the pool while it is being filled, but they
would probably appreciate that management would not expose them to harm. Alternative
activities, rain checks, and/or remuneration would be in order if the pool is out of
commission.

								
To top