Category: Accountability

Introduction

Public accountability is one of the noble concepts immensely supported by scholars in the discipline of public administration. In the political discourses coupled with policy documents, the term finds an imperative usage since it portrays an image of trustworthiness and transparency (Forrer, et al., 2010).

These two aspects are crucial since citizens who are also the clients of a state become satisfied that a system of administration is able to meet their anticipations in the public sector without exposing their resources to risks of fraud. In this extent, accountability emerges as one of the key values in the public administration. The aim of this study is to discuss the issues involved in making public organizations accountable.

A consideration is also given to discuss the people whom public officials are accountable to, and the most effective means of ensuring a balance between the demands for accountability and the need to have high-performing organizations.

Issues involved in making Public Organizations Accountable

Accountability involves making organizations transparent and responsible in their dealing in the effort to enhance their trustworthiness. For them to realize the goal, they need to address a number of issues concerning accountability. One of such issue is the development of the capacity to deal with emerging matters that may impede their efforts to attain their dream of being accountable.

For instance, the advent of globalization presents many challenges to corporations and institutions of public administration, seeking that to be accountable in many nations. Kearns (2003) supports the argument by further adding, Globalization plays the role of shaping the current trends in the global economic markets and the increasing interactions among nations and people from different parts of the world (p.76).

Emergence of new interactions driven by the dawn of globalization introduces challenges to institutions of public administration in that they handle emerging new roles and expand their functionality sphere. The more expansive an institution or any system requiring checks is, the harder it becomes to handle all the individual facets of an organization, which may provide loopholes for acts of fraud.

Emerging new issues such as those prompted by globalization also present challenges to accountability efforts of an organization due to the need to understand the dynamics of global value chains, creating trade facilitation structures, developing partnerships, and the establishment of value chains and networks (Kearns, 2003, p.81).

Existence of such new challenges means that public administration officials have to constantly change their tactics for enhancing accountability since traditional approaches or styles for public administration cease to be effective in handling all the contemporary situations that may prove to be a challenge to the efforts of becoming accountable.

From the above discussion, it is essential that an organization that seeks to be accountable in a globalized market to consider looking for new approaches of enhancing transparency as opposed to the traditional approaches for enhancing intelligibility in the public administration. In fact, this factor is yet another crucial issue involved in making public organizations accountable.

The history of public administration reveals that the main approach for enhancing accountability is through exercising of control and close monitoring of persons who are mandated to execute certain affairs that are of public interest. This task entails bureaucratic discretion through compliance with some tightly drawn rules and regulations (Forrer et al., 2010, p.477).

Alteration of such an approach is critical in the modern world that is driven by hefty interactions so that, rather than using a direct-control paradigm, an organization has to consider implementation of strategies for enhancing accountability. The strategy must be driven by the concerns of delegations as a methodology for breaking down the bureaucratic approaches to public accountability.

The relevance of this issue for an organization that wants to be accountable rests on the platform that, although delegation is an effective way for enhancing accountability, it has its limitations. A challenge facing an organization that is determined to be accountable is the establishing of balance and determination of the extents and permissible thresholds of accountability in the organization.

Thirdly, an organization needs to deal proactively with the issue of balancing levels of accountability anticipated from various stakeholders. In support of this argument, Forrer et al. (2010) reckon, public managers report not only to a multitude of elected officials, but also to a plethora of interest groups, clientele, media, and other actors (p.478).

This argument means that public administrators serve many conflicting interests of different stakeholders, both formal and informal, through the deployment of appropriate mechanisms for enhancing accountability.

The balancing mechanism that an organization that seeks to become accountable must deploy includes hierarchical accountability, public accountability, while not negating deploying of mechanisms for enhancing accountability to impersonal standards.

Organizations that embrace the relevance of accountability as a way of development of trust among various stakeholders must appreciate that one of the important issues they must put into perspective is that they must conform precisely to a myriad of legitimized but also competing anticipations for accountability.

To whom are Public Officials Accountable?

Public officials have to be accountable to various people. Essentially, accountability is a means through which public agencies and their workers answer to the citizens directly and indirectly for the use of their power, authority, and resources (Kearns, 2003, p.9).

From this definition, it is paramount to note that, in the first degree, public officials are accountable to the citizens who are also served by other persons and interest groups to whom public officials must also be accountable. Such other persons include city councils, administrators such as presidents, states legislatures, media, and professional associations, among others.

With the rise of and advocating for governance approaches that portray the exercise of democracy as the chief mechanism of ensuring equal presentations of all citizens concerns and interests in the tools of administration, concerns have been alarming on the mechanisms that can ensure that governments are held accountable effectively.

Consequently, with regard to Kearns (2003), internal means of enhancing accountability, including official rules, codes of conduct, administrative hierarchy, performance evaluation, organizational culture, and professional ethics (p.65) have dominated the discussions of public accountability. Some of these mechanisms of enhancing accountability have been pinned in the constitutions of many democratic nations.

All systems of power comprise executives, judicial, and legislative divisions of government. These divisions have the responsibility to keep public administrators on the check to limit their discretion to ensure they are achieving their noble mandates placed on them by citizens.

For instance, in the US the progressive era marked the establishments of independent government regulatory agencies, public commissions, and corporation to oversee government bodies through the executive branch (Forrer et al., 2010, p.478).

From the context of the roles of congress, public officials have a duty to ensure that they meet the requirements placed on them in terms of meeting the demands for accountability as stipulated by organizations for agency oversight and committees for budget appropriations, among others.

Since citizens cannot directly regulate the operations of public officials, such organs exercise control and monitoring of the activities of public officials on behalf of the citizens to ensure that they are accountable to any repercussions of the policies formulated and implemented by the public officials.

Public officials are accountable to legislatures. Legislatures have roles to play to investigate the operations of various public officials and demand to provisions of information on certain aspects that they may believe have comprised the national ethics and codes of practice in public offices, including accountability. Organizations such as GAO can also be employed by legislatures and congress to scrutinize public agency programs.

Consequently, public officials must be accountable to them. Since the goal of accountability is to ensure transparency to all interest groups and stakeholders in the operations of public administrators as argued before, public officials are also accountable to media, professional communities, and client groups.

Client groups are interested in the implications of public policies. Such groups have specific anticipated outcomes from public officials. Should the public officials fail to meet these anticipations effectively or do things at exorbitant and inflated costs, the officials have to be held accountable for the failure or embezzlements of funds.

Conclusion: Balancing the Demands for Accountability and the Need to have High-performing Organizations

Accountability implies that public officials have to evaluate every policy or decision they take to ensure that it does not expose the interest of various stakeholders and interest groups at risk upon its implementation. This argument means that decisions and policies that have high potentials of yielding optimal results but possessing high-risk vulnerabilities may not be implemented.

Measuring performance from the paradigm of the magnitude of returns, for instance, in terms of social benefit, failure to implement projects having high risks of failure, but having high levels of returns means that the performance of a public institution is impaired.

Public officials must balance demand for accountability and the need to have high-performing organizations.

For instance, considering the experience of hurricane Katrina, it is arguable that the government ought to have invested heftily on strategies and equipment for dealing with aftermaths and or for detection of both the likelihoods and the magnitudes of natural catastrophes in the bid to enhance effective disaster awareness through its established institutions for disaster management.

Such a measure would make disaster management institutions highly performing if the investments turn out commensurate to the anticipated levels of response to human and logistical challenges posed by hurricane Katrina.

However, in the effort to ensure that such organizations become highly performing, the question that emerges is whether indeed public officials charged with running such institutions would be willing to venture into risky decisions that would compromise their levels of accountability in the public domain.

Koliba, Zia, and Mills (2011) support this line of thought by noting that it is important to develop both theoretical and empirical constructs to identify and assess how and whether failures of accountability lead to failures in performance (p.210).

Directly congruent with this proposal, it is of paramount importance that public officials be made to account for success rather than just failures. Such a strategy can help to balance demands for accountability and the need for high performing organizations.

Obtaining a balance between accountability and the need for high-performing organizations is a challenge that public officials need to proactively address, especially bearing in mind that the citizens whom they owe the ultimate responsibility while making their decisions do not directly elect them.

Consequently, public officials may consider complying with political accountability roles since, according to Bovens (1998), public officials are not rigidly constrained in their performance by narrow legal or procedural settings (p.31).

This case means that the capacity to form and operate public institutions driven by the motive for high performance may be compromised by the need to meet programmed guidelines issued by the appointing authority in hierarchical systems of administration.

This argument is more imperative upon considering Bovens (1998) assertion that political accountability tends to use outcomes as the main parameter for evaluation of performance rather than compliance with administrative rules and procedures (p.31).

As a repercussion, it is probable that public officials may fail to balance accountability with the need to create highly performing public institutions due to the need to satisfy the anticipations of the elected authority as opposed to direct anticipations of the electorate.

Although in democratic and corruption-free nations, the elected persons may present the interest of the electorate. Hence, the anticipations of the elected and the appointing authority from the public officials have to measure up to the anticipation of the electorate. In the corruption-prone nations, the electorate interests are not presented by the elected persons.

If public administrators appointed by the corrupt-elected persons have to be politically accountable, it means that a balance between accountability and the need to put in place a highly performing organization cannot be established.

Reference List

Bovens, M. (1998). The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organizations. Public Administration, 77(3), 455-474.

Forrer, J., Kee, J., Newcomer, K., & Boyer, E. (2010). Public- Private Partnerships and the public accountability question. Public administration review, 1(1), 475- 484.

Kearns, P. (2003). Accountability in a Seamless Economy, in G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds.), Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage Publications.

Koliba, C., & Zia, A., & Mills, R. (2011). Accountability in governance networks: an assessment of public, private and nonprofit emergency management practices following hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 1(1), 210-20.

Introduction

Governance and accountability is a critical concept to the development of states. Accountability in governance is a vital practice. It encourages effectiveness in discharge of duties and equitable allocation of resources. Accountability in different institutions has a close link with the way power is distributed in organizations. The loci of power in institutions are useful parameters for assessing the level of accountability in the organizations.

Decentralization of power is highly encouraged in most liberal democracies across the world. Decentralization of power is manifested in a number of managerial practices in institutions like the delegation of the organizations duties and responsibilities (Brinkerhoff et al. 2009).

This paper looks into the aspects of centralization and decentralization of power in different institutions and how these two aspects of governance encourage accountability. In this paper, it is argued that institutions accountability is better attained through dispersion of power and the delegation of the organizations responsibilities rather than through centralization of power and control.

Accountable governance in liberal democracies

Having mentioned liberal democracies, it is imperative to explain how the distribution of power encourages accountability in such nations. One vital characteristic of liberal democracies in the todays world is the high decentralization of power.

Power and ability to make decisions in such countries do not lie in the hands of some individuals. Liberal states decisions are made through consultations between different arms of the government. This means that different arms of the government discuss, consult with each other and deliberate on the issues before the final decision is reached (Ezzamel et al. 2007).

Decisions reached through consultation and deliberations are better weighed than those that are made unilaterally. Different bodies which deliberate on the issues and come up with certain suggestions are also involved in the implementation of such decisions (Brinkerhoff et al. 2009). Therefore, there is a low possibility of manipulating decisions in the middle phases of implementation.

This encourages checks, ensuring that there is a balance in the implementation process. It is easy to detect anomalies in the implementation of the decisions because of the many observers monitoring the process.

Up to this point, it is imperative to say that liberal democracies encourage institutions accountability. Powers are decentralized from the top governance, leaving institutions with no other option, but to implement such structures (Mulgan,2003).

Having talked about liberal democracies, it is vital to mention autocratic governance. Autocratic governance is the least desired form government in the modern society. Autocracy means the centralization of power.

A few individuals are vested with decision making power, leaving other people as mere enforcers of the decisions reached. Channels of deliberating on issues are closed making most people rubber-stamp these decisions. The quality of decisions is put in jeopardy. Therefore, the level of accountability is often low in regimes which do not embrace democracy (Trechsel,2010).

Governance and accountability in decentralized institutions

Research shows that most people in the world are against the centralized system of governance. There are several reasons for the resentment. One of the strongest reasons is that centralized governance kills institutional accountability through the encouragement of unilateral decision making (Ezzamel et al. 2007). In centralized governance, there is one locus of power.

Institutional functions are coordinated from a single point. In some instances, all the powers to make key decisions are left under the control of one individual. The result of this is that one person takes advantage of the power to make certain decisions, which might not be favourable to the whole country/institution (Kaler,2002).

A deep look into the modern practices of institutional management shows that most organizations embrace decentralized structure of management.

Delegation of authority and responsibility can be traced in a wider range of institutions. This is one form of decentralizing power and encouraging sharing of organizational power and responsibilities. This practice is replicated at almost all levels of governance in countries that embrace democracy. Notable examples can be traced in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia (Curtin, Mair& Papadopoulos, 2010).

These are the benchmark regions in as far as institutions accountability is concerned. The question that should be asked is how the decentralization of power and delegation of responsibilities contributes to a higher accountability. Another issue that should be discussed at this point is how the centralization of power and responsibilities kills institutional accountability.

These questions can be sufficiently answered by taking a deeper look into institutions administration from two perspectives  centralized and decentralized governance (Schillemanns, 2008).

Decentralized institutional governance: its role in bringing about accountability

Steets (2010) observed that institutional accountability was often measured by the level at which institutions planed and assigned resources effectively in order to get the desired results. Accountability means that employees in an institution embrace ethics in their work (Shearer, 2002). The application of decentralized principles in organizations entails the redistribution of authority in institutions management.

In such institutions, power is shared among different people. Therefore, decisions are not made by a single authority. Each department is given powers to come up with their own suggestions that may be efficient. Each section of an organization has a head who leads it in coming up with decisions and implementing them using the available resources. Perhaps, one point should be noted here.

Decentralized authority does not mean that there is no centre of power. Numerous centres of power exist within an organization. However, each centre of power is given autonomy in a number of duties.

This is where the aspect of responsibility starts. Leaders of departments work closely with the organizations members. Institutional workers keep close checks on each other and on the overall duties that are assigned to them (Kaler,2002).

Organizational tasks are not left in the hands of a few individuals but distributed among other segments of the organization. Leaving the task of decision making to fewer people has numerous consequences on institutions administration. One of the effects is that centralization of authority and responsibility causes flooding. Flooding encourages haphazardness in the discharge of institutional duties.

In such situations, it is easy for an institution to attain improved performance. In delegation, institutional responsibilities are assigned to people across the institution in such a way that no person is left with a wide load of work. This exercise depends on the abilities and skills of the institutions workers. Therefore, it is easy to narrow on a person whenever anomalies occur in the institution.

However, anomalies rarely occur because every individual is involved in the institutions production. Institutions are seen in terms of their ability to serve the society and not in terms of power and dominance (Hood,2010). Power is a minor element in situations where there is a higher delegation of duties and responsibilities. In other words, power is replaced by responsibility.

People work hard to accomplish their tasks as they are responsible for any task assigned to them. Most organizations in liberal democracies thrive in the global economy due to high levels of performance. The highest level of performance comes from the fact that there is a high level of organizational responsibility due to delegation of duties and responsibilities (Steets, 2010).

According to Behn (2001), a number of people argue that accountability can still be attained in institutions that have centralized operations. Their argument is that centralization promotes bureaucracy, which in turn encourages accountability in institutions. While there is some weight in the argument, the biggest portion of the argument is refuted.

This comes from the numerous study outcomes. Those results show that bureaucracy does not encourage accountability. Most functions in bureaucratic institutions are centralized. Delegation of responsibility is a rare practice in such institutions.

Conclusion

Institutional accountability is closely associated with decentralized systems of governance. This system of governance is synonymous with liberal democracies. Liberal democracies encourage the decentralization of power and delegation of administrative responsibility. Most institutions in liberal democracies embrace the democratic principles of management.

These principles include delegation of institutional power and responsibilities. This system governance is synonymous with autocratic regimes. In such regimes, institutions accountability is quite low due to the failure to enhance delegation of authorities.

Institutions power is also highly centralized. From this discussion, it is imperative to say that there is a close relation between decentralization of institutions power and attainment of institutions accountability.

Reference List

Behn, R D 2001, Rethinking democratic accountability, Brookings Inst. Press, Washington, D.C.

Brinkerhoff, D W, Johnson, R W, Hill, R, Merrill, S, Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute & Army War College (U.S.) 2009, Guide to rebuilding governance in stability operations: A role for the military, Army War College, U.S.

Curtin, D, Mair, P& Papadopoulos, Y 2010, Accountability and European Governance, Routledge, New York.

Ezzamel, M, Robson, K, Stapleton, P & McLean, C 2007, Discourse and institutional change: Giving accounts and accountability, Management Accounting Research, vol. 18, no. 2, 150-171.

Hood, C 2010, Accountability and Transparency: Siamese Twins, Matching Parts, Awkward Couple?,West European Politics, vol. 33 no. 5, 989-1009.

Kaler, J 2002, Responsibility, accountability and governance, Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 11 no. 4, 327-334.

Mulgan, R G 2003, Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Schillemanns, T 2008, Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies, Public Organization Review, vol. 8 no. 2, 175-194.

Shearer, T 2002, Ethics and Accountability: From the For-Itself to the For-the-Other, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 27 no 6, 541-573.

Steets, J 2010,Accountability in public policy partnerships, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire.

Trechsel, A H 2010, Reflexive Accountability and Direct Democracy, West European Politics, vol. 33 no. 5, 10501064.

Abstract

The focus of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the implications of privatising public utilities with regard to accountability issues. In addition to the provision of supporting evidence, the paper assesses how privatisation of public utilities affects accountability. Privatisation of public utilities has two main effects on accountability. Efforts to privatise public utilities lead to demotivation on the part of the government.

The responsibility of the government is to investigate and respond to the demands of the public. When public utilities are privatised, the private sector takes up the role of providing the various services needed by members of the public. In addition to the government, efforts to privatise public utilities demotivate the entire public. The public sector lacks the resources and the mandate to mobilise resources and rouse for quality services.

The private sector ends up holding the public at ransom, inflating the costs charged on the government and, in extension, the public. In the process of legislating, some politicians may be biased and favour the issue of privatising public utilities. In most cases, they are the ones who benefit as most of the private companies that end up taking up the role of providing public services belong to them.

By privatising public utilities, the government reduces the role of members of the public in ensuring that the services provided are of high quality. The development has various effects as far as accountability is concerned. At the end of the day, the consumers pay more for the same services.

Introduction

Privatisation initiatives are mechanisms and components that fall under the broader liberalisation strategies and policies adopted by governments around the world. The main objective of privatisation initiatives is the formulation and implementation of policies aimed at restructuring the economy.

The major aim of such restructurings is to control the economy, especially if it has become inefficient and inebriated with corruption and other economic problems. The driving force behind the governments decision to undertake such a policy is, in most cases, its heavy involvement in the public sector. Resource privatisation, as a policy, is not an ancient phenomenon.

It is one of the most recent and most revolutionary innovations in economic policies. While this idea seems restricted to majority of the developed nations, a significant number of developing countries in the world find the initiative more applicable to their economies compared to other policies. All over the world, nations and governments regard the idea as a financial desire and a growth strategy.

However, while the idea continues to gain more ground and acceptability in most nations, some policy makers look at it from an accountability perspective. Most of the issues raised by these policy makers with regard to the honesty of the idea revolve around accountability issues.

They are also concerned with the credibility of the move, as well as the level of involvement among the three parties or stakeholders, namely the government, the private sector, and consumers of public utility goods and services.

Papadopoulos & Curtin (2012) state that the formulation and implementation of privatisation policies involves both complete and partial disposal of public utilities, as well as such assets as state-owned land. It also involves the privatisation of industries and businesses that were, for a long time, under the control of the government.

According to economists and other professionals, such as philosophers and political scientists, there are several theories explaining privatisation in ancient and contemporary economies.

According to Anjum (2012) and Hindmoor & Bell (2009), privatisation occurs when the government makes the decision to reduce its involvement in the management of some public resources. Through such an initiative, the government releases some of the resources and assets to the private sector.

In some of the arrangements entered into with the various stakeholders, the private sector is mandated to control part of, or the entire, resource base. The aim is to enhance the provision of services and goods to the end users like consumers and other citizens in the country.

According to Funnell (2001) and Savas (1987), privatisation, basically, involves an arrangement where competitiveness and efficiency are improved as far as the provision of public services and goods is concerned. Going by its early definition, the privatisation policy required the wholesale transfer of public assets and functions from the government to the private sector.

In contemporary society, it involves contracting a private investor to help the government in the provision of goods and services to the general public. On their part, Ellman (2006) and Hart (2003) define the concept as an arrangement where the government agrees to transfer its assets and services to investors in the private sector.

In a nutshell, the fundamental nature of privatising public utilities is to increase the participation of the general public (read private investors) in the production and delivery of goods and services in the society.

In one of their articles, Young & MacDonald (2000) question the rationality of the government in formulating and implementing privatisation policies. The scholars put the government to task given that, in most cases, it has at its disposal all the resources and mechanisms needed to satisfy the needs of the citizens. There are a number of theories explaining the pressures that force the government to take such initiatives.

According to Public Services Research Unit [PSIRU] (2006), there are four major reasons why the government may privatise most of the public utilities under its control. The four are populist, commercial, pragmatic, and ideological reasons.

According to the populist theory, there is always a felt and real need for the society (through the government) to give the citizens high quality goods and services using the available resources. Individuals in the society feel they have the right to access high quality services, such as health, water, and sanitation among others.

Privatisation initiatives help to empower such individuals and ensure that they have access (and control) over resources in the society. For example, when citizens buy shares (through initial public offers) in a power generating company that was under the control of the government, they end up controlling power generating resources in the country.

The second factor that pushes governments to privatisation involves commercial pressures. Analysts and supporters of privatisation initiatives argue that such policies help in setting up more businesses in an economy (Manubhai1998). Scholars, who support the commercial theory (Hess, Adams 2000; Ellman 2006,) argue that the state should give up its control over some resources. The reason for this is the size of the government.

The entity takes up a significant part of the economy. As a result, the provision of goods and services should be left in the hands of private firms. Private firms, given their commercial orientation, stand a better chance, compared to the government, to effectively utilise resources in improving the quality of life for the citizens.

According to pragmatist theorists, the aim of privatisation is to help improve the functionality of the government. An argument derived from this supposition asserts that privatisation policies lead to cost-effectiveness in the utilisation of public resources.

Uhr (2005) illustrates that the ideology behind the privatisation of resources by the government is related to the aim of helping in streamlining its operations and introducing a tendentious and effective public sector.

According to pragmatists, privatisation helps the government to continue growing and expanding to effectively make the needs of the citizens available to them. Most of the decisions made by the government are political in nature. As a result, such decisions are less trustworthy compared to those made in a free market economy.

Most of the arguments in support of privatisation initiatives maintain that societal dynamics force the government to rely on the private sector to help in meeting the needs of the citizens.

Specifically, the government relies on the private sector to provide the citizens with goods and services associated with public utilities. Based on this argument, Tiernan (2007) holds that the government may choose to contract the help of private investors in the local, regional, or international market.

Anjum (2012) asserts privatisation is associated with various benefits. For example, the leadership structure adopted in the private sector ensures that individuals are highly rewarded for their contribution in the development of the organisation, leading to high levels of motivation.

As such, increasing the number of firms in the private sector (through privatisation) increases the number of motivated individuals in the society as more people are employed in these private firms. However, the private sector is annoyed by job insecurities and such other issues.

In spite of this, the performance of private firms is significantly higher compared to that of the government. On the contrary, the public sector is associated with job security, but the employees lack incentives to improve their performance.

Ellman (2006) and Sarfraz (1998) are of the view that public utility, as a concept, is not clear defined. It includes, but not limited to, such items and assets as telephone services, road transport, rail transport, water services, insurance services, banking services, sewerage disposal, health care, education, electricity, postal services among others.

Under privatisation, the government mandates the private sector to take up some of its roles. The roles include providing the public with various goods and services. In one of the strategies used in privatisation of public utilities, the government may hire private investors and mandate them to handle the resources.

In such a case, the government gives up control to the private sector. Alternatively, the government may contract the services of the private investor, but retain the financial and political responsibilities to the citizens as far as control of the resources is concerned. In another arrangement, the state may grant the private sector the responsibility of enhancing performance in service delivery.

In either case, the function of the government revolves around regulating the operations of the service provider. Another strategy involves contracting the services of other stakeholders, for example the employers. Through such an arrangement, the government shifts its welfare burden to the service provider. The government may offer incentives or subsidies to both the citizens and the service providers in any of the three mechanisms.

In spite of its supporters spirited fight, a number of criticisms are pointed against the privatisation of public utilities. The individuals opposed to the idea of privatisation, both in developed and developing countries, regard such initiatives as a plot to sell off public utilities to private brokers.

In addition, the employees in most of these countries are against privatisation. In his article, Funnell (2001) illustrates that privatising public utilities may lead to loss of jobs and increased bureaucracy because of lack of accountability from the government.

There are various implications of privatisation of public utilities in relation to accountability. Hess & Adams (2000) identify one of the implications as the lack of effective mechanisms to impose penalties.

The others are price fluctuations, lack of guidelines to inform compensations and redress of complaints, as well as transparency issues. Other scholars are concerned with public participation, equitable access to public utilities, and the rise of monopolies.

According to Taylor & Balance (2005), it is important for the public to get involved in the decision making process. Before the government makes the decision to implement a project, it is important to enhance public involvement through their representatives. The policies advanced by the government in such cases enhance transparency in the management of state resources.

The consumers are directly involved as they participate in the management of the resources. Ellman (2006) is of the view that a lot of emphasis is placed on accountability and transparency as far as privatisation of public utilities is concerned. Two of the major concerns, according to the author, revolve around policies relating to public services and decision making process.

Active public involvement in the decision making process is one of the prerequisites of privatisation, which helps to improve service delivery through competition. As a result, the major concern in the process of formulating privatisation policies is whether or not the public is fully involved in the initiative.

Kanesalingam (1991) suggests that the government, through the public policies, should involve the citizens in the delivery of goods and services related to public utilities. It is the citizens who are aware of the services that will satisfy their needs. It is important to ensure participation of the public through informed debates.

The debates are very important as they are forums through which the public gets the opportunity to make their opinion known. It is only through the support of the government that the public can be represented in such debates.

Another major concern with regard to privatisation of public utilities is the frequent changes in the prices of goods and services provided by private investors. Evidence from the Australian Government (2006) shows that most private investors in both developed and developing nations tend to increase the prices of their goods and services.

One of the justifications provided is that investors in the private sector have to contend with the costs associated with monitoring and evaluation. Given that the major objective of the investors is to make profits, they pass the costs to the consumers to cushion their profit margins.

Apart from the issue of public involvement to ensure transparency, Hart (2003) and Manubhai (1998) notes that there are other factors that needs to be taken into consideration when privatising public utilities. They include, among others, basic responsibilities, social policy, equity, and universal access to public utilities.

Most of the problems that arise from privatisation affect the disadvantaged members of the community, such as the poor and the marginalized groups. The individuals who do not use the utilities may also be affected by the privatisation initiatives. It is observed that the sectors regarded as unprofitable in the economy are largely ignored by private investors and service providers who are profit oriented.

The same goes for geographical locations that are regarded as uneconomical. The reason why private investors ignore these regions is because of the perception that they are remote and less economically viable. As a result, they end up cutting down or even shutting down utilities in these areas, denying citizens access to services.

There are various real life examples used to illustrate the relationship between accountability and privatisation of public utilities. In 2009, the US government made efforts to liberalise and privatise its airline sector. The management of some airlines was left in the hands of private investors.

Because of remoteness and unprofitability of some routes, a number of airlines withdrew their services. The people leaving in these regions were highly inconvenienced. Another example is the privatisation of ActewAGL and United Water in 1995 by the Australian government (Australian Government 2006).

As a private company, United Water was mandated to initiate cost saving measures and increase the volume of water sold. However, there are various accountability issues that continue to bedevil this sector. The issues revolve around increase in water prices and standardized measures to address the quality of the commodity, as well as discharge of wastewater.

In conclusion, it is important to point out that the government should be fully responsible for certain public utilities like gas, water, electricity and other universal services. The government should ensure that there is continued supply of these critical services to the citizens.

References

1 Anjum, T 2012, Privatisation of public utilities: a consumer perspective, Consumer Rights Commission of Pakistan, Kabul.

2 Australian Government 2006, Department of Prime Minister: discussion paper on the role of the private sector in the supply of water and wastewater services, London House of Publishing, London.

3 Ellman, W 2006, Does privatising public service provision reduce accountability?, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain.

4 Funnell, W 2001, Government by fiat: the retreat from responsibility, UNSW Press, Sydney.

5 Hart, O 2003, Incomplete contracts and public ownership: remarks, and an application to public-private partnerships, Economic Journal, vol. 113, pp. 69-76.

6 Hess, D & Adams, M 2000, Alternatives to competitive tendering and privatisation: a case study from the Australian health industry, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 59 no. 1, pp. 49-59.

7 Hindmoor, A & Bell, S 2009, Rethinking governance: the centrality of the state in modern society, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

8 Kanesalingam, V 1991, Introduction to privatisation: trends and experiences in South Asia, Macmillan, New Delhi.

9 Manubhai, S 1998, Public services and the new role of the states and the government, Liberal Times, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 9-12.

10 Papadopoulos, H & Curtin, D 2012, Accountability and European governance, McGraw-Hill, London.

11 Public Services Research Unit 2006, Pipe dreams: the failure of the private sector to invest in water services in developing countries, World Development Movement, London.

12 Sarfraz, K 1998, Regulatory issues in Pakistan telecommunication, The Pakistan Development Review, vol. 4, pp. 873-882.

13 Savas, S 1987, Privatisation: the key to better government, Chatham House Publishers: Chatham.

14 Taylor, A & Balance, T 2005, Competition and economic regulation in water: the future of the European Water industry, IWA Publishing, London.

15 Tiernan, A 2007, Power without responsibility, UNSW Press, Sydney.

16 Uhr, J 2005, Terms of trust: arguments over ethics in Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney.

17 Young M & MacDonald, D 2000, Land and water, interstate water trading: a two year review, Journal of Government Responsibility, vol. 3, pp. 122-134.

The culture of accountability is a firmly established approach to workplace safety. While being widely recognized and practiced in many fields, including healthcare, it has been criticized as having no effect or even disrupting the healthy workplace environment. The central point of the culture of accountability is each employees personal responsibility for their actions, including faulty ones. The mistakes are addressed by disciplinary measures which are often punitive in nature.

This became one of the most controversial points as some argued that punishment does not lead to improvement in safety and creates the sense of fear among employees. As an alternative, the concept of just culture was introduced in the late nineties (Dekker, 2012). Its central difference lies in its approach to mistakes. According to the just culture concept, not all mistakes are the result of reckless actions. Some of them may be triggered by faulty processes and protocols. In this case, they should be viewed as a way to learn a lesson and not as a reason for punishment. This leads to several advantages of the just culture.

First, the people do not feel treated unfairly when the mistake is not the result of their conscious poor decision making. Second, the proper discussion of mistakes may reveal the shortcomings of the system. Finally, targeting all faulty actions regardless of the actual adverse outcomes serves as a preventive measure against future incidents. However, just culture still needs disciplinary actions in case of the poor decision making, but the line between personal and organizational accountability. Thus, just culture requires time to interpret the actions. In comparison, the culture of accountability is streamlined, simple, predictable, and leaves little room for interpretation (Dohmann, 2010).

Besides, it leads to stricter discipline. This rigidity is viewed by some as a disadvantage as it contributes to the stressful workplace environment and fear of retribution but does not improve safety (Dekker, 2012).

The revealing of information to the patients and their families is a complex ethical topic. While both the healthcare providers and the general public are almost unanimous about the positive effects of fully informing the patients of the mistakes regardless of their seriousness or the actual outcome, such strategy involves several risks. First, while the mistakes that inevitably lead to adverse outcomes must be reported for obvious reasons, the minor ones which pose no threat to the patients well-being and are otherwise irrelevant to them are more controversial.

The revealing of such mistakes may lead to misinterpretation by the patient, unnecessary anxiety and stress, the loss of healthcare providers reputation, and possibly legal action by the client (Yasgur, 2012). All of these can be prevented by the additional effort which will exclude interpretation but requires slightly more resources and time. The concealment of mistakes, however, has far more risks. First, it undermines communication with the patient, who may provide information regarding the error. Second, it introduces the possibility of subjective interpretation, where the doctor misjudges the seriousness of the withheld information and conceals something that is important for the patient.

Finally, once the fact of concealment surfaces, it will likely lead to the same negative effects as the intentional disclosure (loss of reputation, distrust, legal action against the physician), but on a much bigger scale, as the concealment is an active practice that naturally implies malpractice (Drane & Reich, 2002). Finally, concealment of minor and negligible mistakes requires a viable framework for determining the level of consequences instead of the current intuitive approach. As such, the unintentional misjudgment by the clinician of the errors seriousness creates the health risk for the patient. Thus, revealing the mistakes is currently more straightforward and involves fewer risks both for the patient and for the healthcare personnel.

References

Dekker, S. (2012). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Dohmann, E. (2010). Clinical accountability in homecare: Six strategies to build and maintain a culture of commitment. Danvers, MA: HCPro Incorporated.

Drane, J. F., & Reich, G. H. (2002). Honesty in medicine: Should doctors tell the truth. American Journal of Bioethics, 2, 14-17.

Yasgur, B. S. (2012). Should you reveal nonharmful mistakes to patients? Web.

Introduction

St. Martin de Porres High School (SMdP) faces many challenges, which hinder its efficiency in teaching students and being a good and desirable place for them. Its personnel, teachers, and administration are not motivated to change anything or work efficiently, and students are not motivated to study and behave appropriately. Violence between students is prevalent, tensions between them and teachers are high, and the administration pretends not to notice anything. Odiotti and Seiberlich, new administrative leaders of SMdP, are eager to change the situation. They should do hard work to work out a plan for changing the schools organizational culture and implement empowerment and accountability in it.

St. Martin de Porres High Schools Current Culture

SMdPs organizational culture is currently highly ineffective: students, teachers, and administrations, three critical components of a school, are mostly dissatisfied with it, and the schools reputation among other schools is terrible. Students are not motivated to learn, their behavior is mostly wrong, and school violence, such as bullying and fights between teens, is common. Administration and teachers feel alienated from students and each other (Howard et al., 2017). They fear to change anything, and according to surveys, most think that students are safe and happy, which is certainly not the case.

Therefore, while SMdP problems are present at all levels, they all result from bad school culture. Organizational culture is the most crucial element of any organization: when it is well-developed, the company becomes self-organized and works efficiently without coercion (Warrick, 2017). Conversely, when the culture is low, coercion and violence become the only way to make the organization work (Katic et al., 2020). Along with it, people on all levels, from administration to students, tend to deny the problem and refuse to change the system. Students and teachers lose their trust in each other, and tension and even violence between them rise (Gregory & Ripski, 2008).

Students expectations from the school do not meet; they lose their value in it and depreciate the school, which leads to a severe worsening of their behavior (Thoonen et al., 2010). As one can see, all mentioned problems have a single root, weak organizational culture. Thus, by changing it, Odiotti and Seiberlich may significantly improve the situation on all levels, eventually increasing the schools reputation.

Solutions to Change the Culture

Empowerment and accountability are necessary organizational qualities for schools, as they indicate the ability of students and teachers to self-organize. Empowerment means the students ability to regulate their behavior and motivation to learn and engage in school life (Cleary et al., 2008). Accountability includes quantitative indicators, such as grades, which show the efficiency of the high school in teaching students; in a broad sense, it also includes teachers responsibility for students education (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Empowered students understand that they will obtain satisfaction by learning and participating in school life and all necessary help, while their wrong behavior will be immediately discouraged.

A new SMdP culture should include strong principles of empowerment and accountability, as it will ensure that both teachers and students will be responsible for their actions. In addition, cooperation should be promoted on all levels: between students, teachers, and teacher-student interactions. Only strong trustful relationships, not an authoritarian disciplinary approach, may ensure that students listen to their teacher and be motivated to learn (Gregory & Ripski, 2008; Thoonen et al., 2010). Lastly, school violence should be eliminated using all recent studies about this topic: its victims should obtain free psychological support and protection (Katic et al., 2020).

Abusers should be closely watched and limited in their possibilities, despite expelling them is not a good idea. New leaders should work in three stages to change the organizational culture in SMdP and improve the situation. These are developing a clear plan of changes, implementing it by communicating it on all levels, from students to teachers, and monitoring the implementation precisely by appointing the administration.

New Management Strategies toward Students, Teachers, and Administration

Teachers main issue is denying responsibility for their actions, blaming students, and refusing to cooperate. Motivated people are not encouraged but rather repressed by a collective that does not want any changes (Howard et al., 2017). Conversely, motivated teachers should be promoted and protected, while those who discourage them should be ordered not to do this. Another component is the development of mutual trust between teachers and students, which can be reached through conversations and searching for mutual interests (Gregory & Ripski, 2008).

Restorative justice can decrease violence: it means supporting and protecting all victims via conversations and mediation, removing prerequisites for violence (Katic et al., 2020). Students academic performance may be improved by showing what students will reach in the future by learning and increasing their interest in solving learning tasks (Thoonen et al., 2010). Lastly, school administration should be appointed to watch for the implementation of those strategies, encourage the changes, and be in constant contact with leaders.

Conclusion

As one can see, while the SMdPs situation is terrible, it is not irresolvable. New school leaders, Odiotti and Seiberlich, should develop a clear plan to communicate with all three school actors: teachers, administration, and students, to create a new organizational culture. Accountability principles should be developed among teachers: they should be motivated to establish trustful relationships with students and be free to create efficient educational programs.

Students should be empowered by developing their responsibility for their education and engaging in school events, interesting for them. School violence should be eliminated by removing all its prerequisites, protecting victims, and discouraging abusers. Lastly, the school administrations main task is monitoring the implementation of the mentioned changes, reporting them to school leaders, and motivating teachers and students to develop accountability and empowerment.

References

Cleary, T. J., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). Effectiveness of the self-regulation empowerment program with urban high school students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 70107. Web.

Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2011). School Accountability. In the Handbook of the Economics of Education (pp. 383421). Web.

Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. B. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behavior in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 337353. Web.

Howard, L. L., Waikar, S., & Berger, G. (2017). Creating a culture of empowerment and accountability at St. Martin de Porres High School (A). Kellogg School of Management Cases, 1(1), 17. Web.

Katic, B., Alba, L. A., & Johnson, A. H. (2020). A systematic evaluation of restorative justice practices: School violence prevention and response. Journal of School Violence, 19(4), 115. Web.

Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Oort, F. J. (2010). Can teachers motivate students to learn? Educational Studies, 37(3), 345360. Web.

Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business Horizons, 60(3), 395404. Web.

Introduction

Sporting activities are a multibillion industry. Image is one of the most important aspects of sports. Sponsorship deals account for a sizeable percentage of sports revenue. In addition, television rights also account for a significant percentage of sports revenue. This necessitates parties that are involved in sports management to have a high level of accountability.

Accountability would help in maintaining the image of sports. One of the major features of sports is unpredictability. It is vital for relevant organizations to ensure that they maintain the unpredictability of sports. Accountability helps in improving the governance of sports. One of the major advantages of sports is the fact that it brings people and countries in a manner that is impossible using other means.

Despite the fact that sporting activities are not inherently a business in economic terms, its activities have huge implications on business activities. Football is the most popular sport. The World, which takes place every four years, is the most watched sports event. Therefore, it is vital for FIFA, the international organization that manages global football, to have a high level of accountability. Accountability of FIFA would help in improving the management of football. This would have great benefits to various football stakeholders.

Review of Article

Roger Pielkes article, how can FIFA be held accountable? discusses the accountability issues that FIFA faces. FIFA is the international organization that oversees football (soccer). The organization also has jurisdiction over various international football competitions. Various parties have accused FIFA of engaging in corruption.

In addition, various stakeholders have accused FIFA of lack of transparency and accountability. This has necessitated FIFA to implement various initiatives to clear its name. In 2011, FIFA implemented process that strived to improve its governance. This initiative would end on May 2013. This article uses literature on international relations to determine whether FIFA is accountable and how various stakeholders may ensure the accountability of FIFA.

According to the article, it is not easy to hold FIFA accountable. This is due to the various complex factors that are involved in management of football. The experience from reforming the International Olympic Committee over the last decade may provide a template on how to reform FIFA.

However, it is clear that for any accountability measure to be effective, it must use various methods of accountability simultaneously (Pielke, 2013). This article may help in understanding the mechanisms that various stakeholders may use to ensure the accountability of large international organizations.

Personal Analysis and Reflection

Accountability is one of the most important issues in global governance. Governance refers to the making and implementing rules that help in the efficient running of a certain entity. Global governance is governance in a global scale (Rosner & Shropshire, 2011). Therefore, good governance and accountability are synonymous.

Accountability helps in improving the management of sports organizations. However, it is difficult for global organizations to enforce accountability. This is because there are various global politics that are inherent in global organizations. In addition, global organizations have various incompatible systems that may make it difficult for global organizations to make decisions that would improve accountability.

As of 2013, FIFA has 209 member associations. Most of these member associations are from sovereign countries. FIFA organized the associations into 6 regional confederations to ease the management of the associations (Pielke, 2013). The member associations have different operating environments.

This makes it difficult for FIFA to manage them. In addition, governments may provide various supporting structures to the member associations. FIFA opposes government interference in management of football. However, in most instances it is impossible for the member associations to function effectively without government interference. This is one poses several problems to FIFA. Government interference and different operating environments make it difficult for FIFA to manage the associations effectively.

The complex nature of global football makes it difficult to implement initiatives that strive to improve accountability. The complex nature of football hinders hierarchy accountability in football. FIFA strive to ensure that there is hierarchy accountability in management of football.

According to FIFAs governance structure, the president and members of the executive committee are the highest authority in the organization. They do not report to any higher authority. On the other hand, the heads of various member associations should report to the head of the regional confederations. In addition, the heads of the member associations should also be accountable to the government departments that control sports.

This is because the departments may provide structures to facilitate the development of football in the country. In addition, the government departments may also provide funding to the associations. In some instances, this may create a conflict of interest between FIFA and governments. However, FIFA prohibits government interference in management of football. FIFA has banned several associations in the past due to the government interference in management of football.

Corporate sponsors help in funding various sports. They account for a sizeable percentage of the revenue of sports organizations. Therefore, it is vital for sports organizations to have market accountability. The World Cup is the major global football showcase. It takes place every four years.

FIFA has various corporate sponsors in every World Cup. These corporate sponsors benefit from the publicity of the World Cup, which reaches billions of people across the globe (Kang, Lee, Goo, 2012). Adidas significant increase in revenue due to the 2010 World Cup is a clear illustration of the benefits that corporate sponsors get from the World Cup. In 2010, revenue of Adidas due to the sale of football and jerseys was more than $2 billion (Pielke, 2013). Therefore, it is vital for FIFA to ensure that there is accountable in football.

Corruption threatens to tarnish the image of the sport. Match fixing and doping are some of the activities that threaten to tarnish the image of football (Thornton, Champion & Ruddell, 2011). Match fixing scandals involving several teams in the Italian premier league (Serie A) in one of the most recent corrupt activities that threaten to tarnish the image of football.

After the revelations of corruption, various sponsors issued statements condemning the activity. Corruption threatens to derail the gains made in sports. This is because it tarnishes the image of sports. This may reduce the support that sports get from various parties.

Therefore, it is vital for relevant authorities to ensure that they formulate policies that would help in reducing corruption. This would help in safeguarding the integrity of sports (Bodin & Sempe, 2011). Endemic corruption in sports would derail the gain made in sports management. This would pose high risks to sports since in sports perception is everything.

References

Bodin, D. & Sempe, G. (2011). Ethics and sport in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Kang, S., Lee, S. & Goo, K. (2012). The influence of multimedia exposure on purchase intention of sponsored products: The case of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(2), 153-175.

Pielke, R. (2013). How can FIFA be held accountable? Sports Management Review, 12(1), 1-13.

Rosner, S.R. & Shropshire, K.L. (2011). The business of sports. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Thornton, P., Champion, W.T. & Ruddell, L.S. (2011). Sports ethics for sports management professionals. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Introduction

The issue of accountability remains critical in the field of nursing since it supports the provision of exemplary patient services. Practitioners who own their decisions and actions find it easier to empower more individuals and join care delivery teams. This paper gives a detailed summary and analysis of the article, Promoting Professional Accountability and Ownership by Rose O. Sherman and Tanya M. Cohn. The presented insights will become powerful guidelines for my future professional practice as a nurse.

Assigned Article Summary

The selected article begins by presenting the story of Steve who is not ready to embrace new change in her unit. This is a problem that affects the objectives of many practitioners, thereby being unable to deliver exemplary patient services. The concept of teamwork stands out as an evidence-based approach for ensuring that caregivers deliver collective results. Currently, the idea of professional accountability remains a concern in healthcare environments (Sherman & Cohn, 2019, p. 24). Practitioners who want to transform practice should identify emerging guidelines that can prevent various challenges, such as pressure ulcers.

The first step towards promoting professional accountability is making it a mindset. This means that individuals should commit themselves to adapt and improve their competencies continuously. They should also apply the right energies and talents that have the potential to maximize patients outcomes (Sherman & Cohn, 2019). Nurses can go further to collaborate with other stakeholders and appreciate the notion of accountability when working in teams.

They will make combined decisions and reshape their philosophies depending on the needs of the patients they serve. According to the nursing code of ethics, practitioners have to respect the involvement and contributions of all professionals throughout the care delivery process (Sherman & Cohn, 2019). They should also remain professionals and commit themselves to the concept of evidence-based practice (EBP). The authors go further to explain why leaders should ensure that all followers remain accountable for their behaviors and actions. They should also guide them to embrace a culture of ownership if they are to remain engaged and develop a sense of pride in the profession.

Impact of Assigned Article Content on Future Practice

The studied article has equipped me with powerful ideas regarding the concept of accountability in practice. I now understand that practitioners should work within the scope of nursing practice (Sherman & Cohn, 2019). They should comply with the outlined standards of practice and consider emerging theories and EBPs that can result in positive health outcomes. As a practitioner, I will always apply such knowledge depending on my patients needs and promote teamwork. Consequently, I will accept shared roles and accountability with other members of my interprofessional group. Such an initiative will result in the delivery of personalized and culturally competent care.

The acquired insights have encouraged me to align my philosophy to the outlined organizational values whenever serving my patients. Nurses and caregivers should always follow established procedures and policies in their respective units. I will consider emerging EBPs and apply them to transform peoples health outcomes (Sherman & Cohn, 2019). These practices will make it possible for me to realize my future aims as a healthcare professional.

Conclusion

Nurses are expected to remain accountable and consider the power of emerging concepts in the healthcare sector. This approach will ensure that they are capable of meeting the changing demands of their respective patients. Leaders should guide their organizations and units to establish cultures that are associated with professional ownership. The application of the ideas gained from the above article will, therefore, empower me to implement EBP, remain accountable, and join interprofessional teams.

Reference

Sherman, R. O., & Cohn, T. M. (2019). Promoting professional accountability and ownership. American Nurse Today, 14(2), 24-26.

Introduction

An essential worldwide health resource management concern is the dearth of healthcare professionals in many settings. Natural attrition, the absence of the necessary expertise, insufficient recruitment processes, and weak deployment tactics are just a few of the elements that play into this and reduce the number of potentially excellent specialists. These issues limit the utilization of medical resources. I am an experienced clinical site coordinator (CSC) and a nurse team leader of the intensive care unit working in a consultant-led island hospital. We have no junior doctors, and consultant doctors are not readily available when you need them; treatment and patient access to medicine is often delayed. Patients may be forced to wait for significant periods before receiving the care they require in some situations. Delays in patient access to health care services have been attributed to a lack of available consultants and their inability to access health facilities.

Medical officials are expected to prescribe proper medications as part of their duties. When a doctor prescribes medication for the treatment or prevention of disease or other physical or mental disorders, they are engaging in the practice of prescribing medicine. Medical orders are often written down and include what medication has been prescribed, why, and how much a patient is to take. Ideally, patients medical histories should be thoroughly examined before doctors write prescriptions. The lack of junior doctors or consultants in the health facilities delays this process.

There is much discussion about the number of medical prescribers and the length of time they take to prescribe therapeutic drugs. Practitioners of health care who are not physicians can provide patients with medication recommendations in the absence or absence of medical professionals. Physiotherapists, diabetic specialists, and pain specialists, among others, should be permitted to prescribe certain medications to patients to reduce drug access delays and increase the efficiency of health care services. They should be authorized to do so (Nuttall, 2019). Nurses spend most of their time with patients. They can identify when particular prescriptions need to be adjusted, or new medications must be added to the patients prescription list. Nurses can improve their prescribing abilities by attending prescription seminars and expanding their scope of practice.

The Roles of Non-Medical Prescribers

Medical officers are not always present when non-medical prescribers are needed, although they can be found in various places. This will make it easier for prescribers, family members, and patients to communicate with one another (Graham-Clarke, 2019). Anxiety in the family and the patient was caused by the deletion of vital information when prescribing a drug, according to user feedback 1. One user input notes a lack of information on the possible clinical consequences of a drugs adverse effects. Providing care requires effective communication on the part of the nurse. The royal pharmaceutical society recommends that patients access adequate medication information to effectively adhere to and comply with treatment protocols (Myers, 2020). This, in turn, will help to reduce the number of antibiotics and other recommended regimens that are being overprescribed. Patients are more likely to use the recommended medication if adverse effects and mechanisms of action are explained to them rather than if they are just given the prescription and sent home.

Patients and clientele rely on non-medical prescribers since they spend time with them. Patients should be able to get their medications from non-medical prescribers in emergencies where doctors are unavailable or cannot be reached (Noblet, 2018). This should be carried out professionally to guarantee high-quality patient outcomes and customer satisfaction. It shows professionalism in dispensing prescriptions, a good standing, and the patients company in user feedback 4 (Kanan and Hartshorn, 2017). Clients and patients in England benefit from the NICE clinical guidelines. As per the NICE clinical guidelines, several research-based techniques should be used for individuals with distinct needs and in diverse contexts.

Limitations and Competencies

As a non-medical prescriber, I should be aware of the limitations and consequences my actions could invoke. In that regard, non-medical workers should only prescribe the drug classes they were appropriately educated about: for instance, through seminars or additional courses. Even then, they should understand that their scope of practice is limited by the lack of professional medical education and should not issue any prescriptions they feel unsure about or unqualified for. Ultimately, I must always practise within my competencies, base the prescriptions on research, evidence, and ymedical history of the patient, and remember to only act in situations where a medical worker is not available to help.

How the Roles of Non-Medical Prescribers Make a Difference to the Patient

This process has three parts: understanding the activities of various drugs and how well they work to treat symptoms. Non-medical prescribers are involved in the holistic care of patients as well as the treatment of their medical conditions. According to NICE recommendations, customers and patients should receive the best possible treatment and care (Davies, 2018). This takes into account their entire personhood. To benefit their patients other requirements, non-medical prescribers can provide this information to them. It can reduce hospitalizations and extended stays by providing non-medical prescriptions that suit the clients specific needs.

According to the fourth and final perspective, patients who have been given enough knowledge about their treatment alternatives do not complain about them and have better health. The NICE recommendations describe how healthcare providers and patients can improve their communication skills (Davies, 2018). Effective communication may be impossible when junior doctors and experts are out of reach. Non-medical prescribers who are usually on hand can aid in the smooth flow of information between the many parties involved. The influence of non-medical prescribers on patient care is, thus, beneficial.

Improvement of Patient Care

Individuals who misuse antibiotics are more likely to develop resistance to them. Antibiotics should not be given without first confirming what is causing the illness, according to input from user number five. Antibiotic resistance, according to the pharmaceutical industry, is a risk of improper or excessive use of antibiotics (Ho, 2020). Resistance can be reduced with the use of appropriate research and clinical discretion. Empirical treatment should always be contrasted to treatment based on cultural organisms. Following up on the investigations before starting medicine is possible because of the availability of health practitioners. Many times non-medical prescribers can help guarantee that evidence-based regimens are available to patients, thereby facilitating the prescription of suitable drugs.

A complete physical exam and a thorough review of family medical history are required to prescribe drugs in Reflections 1, 2, and 5. Correct information on a patients condition is critical to their care. There are non-medical prescribers who can acquire sufficient information about the patient, including environmental elements that may have contributed to the condition (Nuttall, 2019). The optimal treatment regimens are implemented when the many interdisciplinary team members work together. As a result, patients will receive better care based on solid research.

How the Roles of Non-Medical Prescribers Improve Patient Care

Reflection 5 discusses professionalisms role in ensuring patients and clients receive high-quality medical care across various health care institutions. Following the standards set forth by the Royal College of Nursing Practice, facilities must ensure that their clients and patients understand the current state of their conditions and the range of treatment options available to them (Marangozov, 2017). According to the General Medical Council, providing health care services should begin with putting the needs of patients first (Alberti, 2017). Nursing and midwifery principles also stress the importance of maximizing available resources to ensure patients receive the best possible care (Baltruks, 2018). Remedies are more likely to be prescribed and administered on time when non-medical prescribers are involved. The NICE recommendations stress the importance of effective communication in promoting evidence-based practice. It is possible to discuss treatment choices and consult with experts in various fields if communication skills are developed (Nuttall, 2019). To provide better care to patients, non-medical prescribers should seek the advice of specialists on problematic issues rather than making assumptions about treatment alternatives. As a result, consultants will not have to travel long distances to prescribe necessary prescriptions.

Easy Access to Treatment Secondary to Non-Medical Prescribers Roles

One of the most important aspects of prescribing procedures is accountability, addressed in reflection 4. One of the essential responsibilities that nurses and midwives have for the people they serve is to be accountable (Carragher, 2017). In the prescription and administration of medications, accountability necessitates efficient knowledge that is evidence-based to support ones arguments (Nuttall, 2019). Confidence and effective communication in patient care make therapy more accessible than when it must be postponed because the consultant is out of town or otherwise unable to provide it. Long wait times and a lack of faith in the hospital can make it difficult for patients to get the care they need. It restricts peoples ability to seek medical help when they need it. If patients cannot wait for the arrival of consultants, non-medical prescribers can speed up the process of getting them into the hospital. In addition, patients benefit from continuity of care, and non-medical prescribers benefit from increased knowledge.

Reduction of Hospital Admissions

One of the concerns that should be avoided, as discussed in reflections 1-7, is a return to the hospital due to inadequate information and unsuitable guidance. Antibiotics for viral infections, for example, can lead to hospitalization if prescribed by a doctor. According to the NICE guidelines for health and care, this raises the cost of treatment for patients (Ho, 2020). This may be secondary to their limited time with their clients and hence make inaccurate health assessments. In a work with a patient, it is important to maintain the high level of offered services as it directly contributes to their level of satisfaction (Rudall et al., 2017). When non-medical prescribers conduct the history and physical examinations, it is easier to arrive at a correct diagnosis. Additionally, the non-medical prescribers take care of a clients overall health, ensuring that these patients and clients receive high-quality treatment. In addition to reducing the number of hospitalizations, proper management of the patients symptoms also minimizes the length of time spent in the hospital (Ho, 2020).

Benefits to the Hospital and Colleagues

Patients, clients, coworkers, and the healthcare institution all gain from the employment of non-medical prescribers. The use of non-medical prescribers benefits patients and customers by increasing access to health care and ensuring the continuity of treatment. To provide the most effective intervention based on current scientific knowledge, collaborating with non-medical prescribers is a smart move for everyone involved (Noblet, 2018). It also helps widen the expertise of various healthcare professionals and take charge in the absence of other healthcare practitioners, such as in emergencies. Prescribers who are not doctors can help reduce the number of off-duty calls and disturbances. Patients in the hospital are better served when non-medical prescribers are used to guarantee continuity of care (Graham-Clarke, 2019). The non-medical prescribers positions in a hospitals leadership and management also help the facility achieve its desired outcomes. Having good lines of communication throughout the medical facility makes it easier to research there. Adopting more efficient interventions in the hospital improves the quality of treatment delivered, increasing patient confidence in the facility (Ho, 2020).

Safe prescribing

Safe prescribing requires proper patient examination, evaluation, and diagnosis to ensure the effective, safe, and cost-effective administration of medication. The prescriber ensures compliance with national requirements and, where appropriate, local formulations. Following the administration of the prescribed medication, they must monitor the treatments favorable and bad outcomes. To minimize bad outcomes, safe prescribing should ensure that the patients condition is treated safely (Linton and Murdoch-Eaton, 2020). Therefore, the prescriber should consider acquiring sufficient information about the patients condition, ensuring that the proposed medication matches the patients needs, and doing a thorough examination and assessment of the patient. This is done to ensure that sufficient information, permission, and medicine capability are obtained from the patient.

In reflections 1-3, miscommunication makes it unsafe to prescribe medication if the prescriber does not have sufficient knowledge about the patients health or if the consultation style is not suited to their requirements. If the patient refuses to consent to the prescriber sharing information with their GP, or if the patient does not have a GP, the prescriber should tell the patient of the risks associated with not revealing this information. Their medical records must reflect this information (Kennedy, Haq, et al., 2019). In addition, if failure to share facts could compromise patient safety, the prescriber must inform the patient that the prescriber cannot prescribe. The prescriber should tell them of their options and direct them to alternative providers that meet their needs. All of their decisions should be supported by extensive documentation.

In reflections 1-7, if prescribers are uncertain whether a patient can decide, they should analyze their capacity based on the applicable legal standard (Bebbington et al., 2021). Their decision-making and consent guidance give comprehensive information on assessing a patients capacity and making decisions when it is known that the patient lacks capacity.

Deprescribing

Reflection 4 urges that deprescribing be performed cautiously and closely to avoid aggravating illness or causing withdrawal symptoms. Achieve patient understanding and acceptance, and this takes thorough individualized dialogue. Patients may benefit from the usage of unique terminology. Individual needs and preferences should be considered when providing therapy and care (Bebbington et al., 2021). Individuals utilizing health and social care services should be able to be cared for and treated in conjunction with their healthcare and social care professionals. It is understood that this is a complex process, not a single act with multiple steps.

In reflection 5, professionals are needed in handling adults since they are more susceptible to severe drug responses, drug-drug combinations, and rapid deterioration if the recommended medication is not optimized. User reflection seven insights that consideration must be given to frailty assessment in multimorbid patients. Identifying patient groups who are likely to take many drugs and are more susceptible to harmful drug interactions is crucial (Kennedy, Williams, et al., 2019). Polypharmacy, elderly patients over the age of 75 who are weak, housebound and nursing home patients, patients with signs of decreasing life expectancy, vulnerable patients, and decline in liver function are examples.

Care discussions necessitate an excellent quantity of time. This may demand longer or alternative consultations, and periodic, planned reviews may be advantageous. User feedback 5 demonstrates that individual permission is required, and if necessary, a mental capacity evaluation must be conducted (Reeve, 2020). To be valid, permission must be free, complete, and informed, which implies that the patient must be able to make the decision voluntarily and fully know all pertinent information. When deprescribing, clinical documentation must be of high quality. Especially when the care decision does not appear to be supported by the best available data, there should be a record of the logical justifications for the adjustments made. In reflection, five patient decision tools benefit collaborative decision-making (Okeowo et al., 2018). These are appropriate when numerous available courses of action exist, and the patients reaction to the outcome probability determines the optimal choice. PDAs developed as part of a clinical guideline to aid a person in weighing the possible benefits and drawbacks of various treatment options are examples of condensed versions that can be used in a consultation.

Social prescribing

In reflections 1 and 2, a link in workers is referred to clients encompassing approach to their health and well-being (Le Bosquet, Barnett, and Minshull, 2019). Those needing practical or emotional support are referred to community organizations and government initiatives. Numerous local organizations, such as pharmacists, admission and discharge services, allied health professionals, social care services, and self-referrals, might refer clients to link workers when social prescribing is beneficial.

Chronic illnesses account for approximately 70% of total health expenditures. However, since there is no solution for them, we must look beyond the typical NHS clinical concept. This is the opportunity to improve the overall wellness and well-being of large numbers of people through social prescribing (Scott et al., 2020). Psychosocial prescribing aspects of employment, who work in GP practices and accept recommendations from all local groups, have emerged; as a result, they connect clients with practical and emotional community assistance. Link workers are afforded sufficient time to establish trustworthy relationships, begin with the individuals priorities, form a shared objective, and expose them to community resources.

In reflection, six social prescribing connects individuals to various activities; for example, the voluntary organizations sector usually provides volunteer opportunities in the arts and education as well as other forms of participation in the community, such as farming, befriending, cooking, eating healthy, and sports (Payne, 2020). The NHS, general practices, pharmacists, multidisciplinary teams, and admission and discharge teams can refer patients to social pharmacology link workers.

Local policies and legislation

The FDA monitors drugs utilizing numerous data sources, such as clinical trials, epidemiologic studies, and post-marketing reports. This article aims to provide clinicians who prescribe FDA-approved drugs with a foundational grasp of drug regulation (Courtenay et al., 2018). The Medicines Act of 1968 gives the prescriber the legal authority to provide medication to a person the prescriber assist. According to the Act, anyone may administer prescription medication to another person as long as they adhere to the prescribers directions (Lorencatto et al., 2018). The Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which entered into effect in 2012, consolidated the law governing pharmaceutical goods for human use in the United Kingdom (Statutory Instruments, 2012). The federal government regulates prescription drug manufacturers by implementing laws and standards to prevent hazardous prescriptions and safeguard public health.

The prescriber considers it essential to manage patient expectations, and the practice team must comprehend and communicate the role to patients (Graham-Clarke et al., 2019). Receptionists at the office of the prescriber use care navigation, which entails obtaining a brief medical history from the patient to find the most appropriate individual to speak with. Receptionists advise patients that the prescriber collaborates with other physicians at the office and will seek their advice as needed (Pescheny, Pappas, and Randhawa, 2018). The consultation room door of the prescriber is labeled with their name and job description, so patients who attend in-person appointments know whom they are seeing. According to the prescriber, time and consistency have also helped patients adjust to their duties (Ho, van Hove, and Leng, 2020). However, the prescriber should emphasize that it may take patients and other healthcare professionals some time to become familiar with her new responsibilities in general practice.

Antibodies Stewardship

Stewardship of antimicrobials is related to the organizational or medical framework of antimicrobials use to ensure their long-term efficacy and safety (Fixsen et al., 2020). The antibiotic stewardship program, as per commissioners, should be implemented in all healthcare facilities. Antimicrobial stewardship programs that consider the resources needed to support antibacterial management in all healthcare settings should be developed. Consider including the following components in a program for antimicrobial stewardship: Monitoring and evaluating antibiotic prescriptions in light of local resistance trends sending regular feedback on antimicrobial prescribing to individual prescribers across all care settings, such as by utilizing professional regulatory numbers and prescriber codes. In user feedback, five hospitalizations for potentially unnecessary life-threatening infections and patient safety risks associated with antibiotic use include Clostridium difficile infections and anaphylaxis (Chiva Giurca, 2018). Educating and training healthcare practitioners on pharmaceutical care and antimicrobial resistance

Infection prevention program roles, obligations, and accountability are clarified when audits are integrated into current improvement initiatives (Tierney et al., 2020). Think about establishing systems and practices to provide prescribers and prescription managers monthly updates on prescribing patterns and trends compared to regional and national averages for antimicrobials. Consider developing methods and procedures for identifying and analyzing whether hospital admissions of patients with possibly preventable infections are related to earlier prescribing decisions.

Reflections, 1-7 consider providing prescribers with IT or decision support systems when deciding whether or not to prescribe an antimicrobial, primarily when a condition is treated with a high frequency of antimicrobials (Drinkwater, Wildman, and Moffatt, 2019). If quick antimicrobial prescribing is not an option, other options may be necessary. Whenever a patients care is transferred to a different facility, consider developing processes and procedures to ensure that the essential information is available: information on current or recent antimicrobial use and when a current antibiotic course should be assessed (Wildman, J. and Wildman, J.M., 2021). Designed to perform specific antimicrobial resistance monitoring to enhance antibacterial stewardship in all care settings should be considered, considering the necessary resources and programspack antimicrobials in quantities corresponding to regional and national guidelines for course lengths. Check prescription rates and trends to see how antimicrobial stewardship programs work.

Moreover, establishing peer-review processes and mechanisms for prescriptions at the local level. Allow health professionals to examine their colleagues antibiotic prescribing practices if they are discordant with domestic or international recommendations, and no rationale is supplied (Balinskaite et al., 2019). Prescribers should be encouraged and assisted in using antimicrobials only when medically necessary. To promote antimicrobial stewardship, health and social care professionals in all settings should work together to communicate and exchange information about antimicrobial resistance and stewardship and share their own experiences and knowledge in this area.

Conclusion

Finally, I intend to improve my education and prepare for my new prescriber work by attending obligatory training sessions and elective courses. I will also seek mentorship from physicians of diverse disciplines to improve my prescribing skill as it is a necessary part of working with the patients efficiently and to provide excellent service opportunities. To stay current on new regulations and legislation, subscribe to MHRA alerts, NICE clinical advice and support, the electronic medicine comprehensive list, and the British formulary online. Additionally, I must reflect on and follow up on the patients I prescribe for, look for new difficulties, and provide reliable and practical patient care. Online access to MHRA warnings, NICE clinical recommendations, an electronic medication compendium, and the British formulary. I intend to strengthen my evaluation and diagnostic talents to be more effective in my new job. All of my future prescribing will be displayed and maintained for self-audit and safe prescription records. By doing this regularly, I may quickly increase my field of practice.

Reference List

Balinskaite, V. et al. (2019) The impact of a national antimicrobial stewardship program on antibiotic prescribing in primary care: an interrupted time series analysis, Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 69(2), pp. 227232.

Baltruks, D. and Callaghan, P.P. (2018) Nursing, midwifery and allied health clinical academic research careers in the UK. Council of Deans for Health (CoDH), p. 21.

Bebbington, E. et al. (2021) Evaluation of a framework for safe and appropriate prescribing of psychoactive medications in a UK prison, Criminal behaviour and mental health: CBMH, 31(2), pp. 131142.

Carragher, J. and Gormley, K. (2017) Leadership and emotional intelligence in nursing and midwifery education and practice: a discussion paper, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(1), pp. 8596.

Chiva Giurca, B. (2018) Social prescribing student champion scheme: a novel peer-assisted-learning approach to teaching social prescribing and social determinants of health, Education for primary care: an official publication of the Association of Course Organisers, National Association of GP Tutors, World Organisation of Family Doctors, 29(5), pp. 307309.

Courtenay, M. et al. (2018) Development of consensus-based national antimicrobial stewardship competencies for UK undergraduate healthcare professional education, The Journal of Hospital Infection, 100(3), pp. 245256.

Davies, H.O. et al. (2018) Impact of UK NICE clinical guidelines 168 on referrals to a specialist academic leg ulcer service, Phlebology, 33(2), pp. 8488.

Drinkwater, C., Wildman, J. and Moffatt, S. (2019) Social prescribing, BMJ, 364, p. 364.

Fixsen, A. et al. (2020) Applying critical systems thinking to social prescribing: a relational model of stakeholder buy-in, BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), pp. 113.

Graham-Clarke, E. et al. (2019) Non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom national health service: a systematic policy review, PLoS ONE, 14(7), pp. 129.

Ho, K.H., van Hove, M. and Leng, G. (2020) Trends in anticoagulant prescribing: a review of local policies in English primary care, BMC health services research, 20(1), pp. 18.

Kennedy, M.B., Haq, I., et al. (2019) The role of undergraduate teaching, learning and a national prescribing safety assessment in preparation for practical prescribing: UK medical students perspective, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 85(10), pp. 23902398.

Kennedy, M.B., Williams, S.E., et al. (2019) UK medical students perspectives on practical prescribing teaching and learning provisions: a cross-sectional survey, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 75(10), pp. 14511458.

Le Bosquet, K., Barnett, N. and Minshull, J. (2019) Deprescribing: practical ways to support person-centred, evidence-based deprescribing, Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 7(3), p. 129.

Linton, K.D. and Murdoch-Eaton, D. (2020) Twelve tips for facilitating medical students prescribing learning on clinical placement, Medical Teacher, 42(10), pp. 11341139.

Lorencatto, F. et al. (2018) Driving sustainable change in antimicrobial prescribing practice: how can social and behavioural sciences help?, The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 73(10), pp. 26132624.

Marangozov, R. et al. (2017) Royal College of Nursing Employment Survey 2017. Institute for Employment Studies (IES). Web.

Myers, L.B. and Midence, K. (2020) Concepts and issues in adherence, in Adherence to treatment in medical conditions. CRC Press, pp. 124.

Noblet, T. et al. (2018) Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials, PloS One, 13(3), p. e0193286.

Nuttall, D. and Rutt-Howard, J. (eds) (2020) The textbook of non-medical prescribing. 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Okeowo, D. et al. (2018) Clinical practice guidelines for older people with multimorbidity and life-limiting illness: what are the implications for deprescribing?, Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, 9(11), pp. 619630.

Payne, R.A. (2020) Polypharmacy and deprescribing, Medicine, 48(7), pp. 468471.

Pescheny, J.V., Pappas, Y. and Randhawa, G. (2018) Facilitators and barriers of implementing and delivering social prescribing services: a systematic review, BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), pp. 114.

Reeve, E. (2020) Deprescribing tools: a review of the types of tools available to aid deprescribing in clinical practice, Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, 50(1), pp. 98107.

Rudall, N. et al. (2017) PROTECTED-UK  Clinical pharmacist interventions in the UK critical care unit: exploration of relationship between intervention, service characteristics and experience level, The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 25(4), pp. 311319.

Scott, S. et al. (2020) Development of a hospital deprescribing implementation framework: A focus group study with geriatricians and pharmacists, Age and Ageing, 49(1), pp. 102110.

The human medicines regulations 2012 (2012). Queens Printer of Acts of Parliament. Web.

Tierney, S. et al. (2020) Supporting social prescribing in primary care by linking people to local assets: a realist review, BMC Medicine, 18(1), pp. 115.

Wildman, J. and Wildman, J.M. (2021) Evaluation of a community health worker social prescribing program among UK patients with type 2 diabetes, JAMA Network Open, 4(9), pp. 112.

The powers of social media have developed gradually over the last decade. Consequently, social media can provide an organization with a platform to form connections with its old and new contacts including customers and supporters. In an online article that appears on the Tech Talk website, Tod Newcombe explores how transit authorities use social media platforms to address their customers queries. The author of this article notes that private organizations have been using social media platforms for quite some time but public institutions are yet to adopt this trend. This paper is a reflection of Newcombes article on how social media can be used to improve accountability in public organizations.

The most competitive and compelling fact about the use of social media by organizations is the platforms ability to provide real-time communications. The article on social media and accountability notes that individuals expect the use of social media by public and private organizations to reflect all aspects of their communication including sales alerts, public relations, and customer satisfaction. For example, when an event or a product has been advertised through social media, customers expect to give their feedback on the same platform. Consequently, it is not prudent to act selectively where real-time communications that occur through social media are concerned.

Newcombes article also alludes to the fact that social media presents organizations with a chance of providing personalized customer service. The author notes that in the digital age, thirty percent of individuals expect to receive responses within an hour every time they air their grievances in an organizations social media platform. Unlike in the past, modern organizations have the chance to respond to their customers on a personal level. For instance, social media users can engage in normal conversations that feature natural tones as opposed to official communications that happen through letters and telephone calls (Newcombe 1). Organizations should take advantage of the conversational-style communication that occurs through social media to communicate their accountability to their customers. For example, an individual is more likely to take personal responsibility when his/her communication with a company is casual. On the other hand, companies can score bonus points with their customers by adopting a casual attitude where accountability is concerned.

One drawback that applies to organizations and accountability involves negative responses. Newcombe notes that anonymous participation has been shown to invite excessively critical posts on social media platforms (Newcombe 1). Consequently, organizations need to prove their accountability in a subtle manner where negative or critical comments are involved. For example, when responding to negative comments on Facebook, it is important to do so in a direct, calm, and thoughtful manner. Public organizations and non-profit organizations receive different forms of criticism where accountability is concerned. Fair and balanced customer service response is important where an organizations accountability is at stake.

Newcombe presents a viable argument where accountability of public organizations is concerned. The author also notes that the increasing reliance on social media as an avenue for reporting customer grievances can work in favor of most companies. Social media can save an organizations time and resources where accountability is concerned. It is also important for organizations public relation exercises to utilize customer data that is sourced through social media avenues. Furthermore, the culture of seeking feedback from social media users can help organizations when they are dealing with accountability issues. Negative and critical comments should not be a hindrance to companies but they should be opportunities for smoothening out customer service issues.

Works Cited

Newcombe, Tod. Tardy Transit? Tweet About It. Tech Talk. Governing, Web.

Identify the problem

The problem presented to the organizations affects the entire company but is mostly rooted in the accounting and managerial department. The problem is rooted in the practice of accounting and especially with regards to forensic accounting. This has had the effect of reducing the profitability and accountability of the company as well as reducing the accountability of individuals in the company.

This has affected management as it has had to shift its focus from other activities to attend to the ever increase attention demanded by the problem. The problem in this scenario is brought about by two situations. The problem is defined through the limitations of the statutory audit. The increase in the misappropriation of funds in the company, and the failure of audits  especially the statutory audit to act on the misappropriation of the corporate fund. ( Paul, 2006)

Define criteria, goals, and objectives

The objective of the decision to be made will be to ensure that the problem presented in by the corporate funds is well addressed. The main aim will be to ensure that there is accountability of the corporate funds in the entire organization. Other objectives attached to the new decision will include the increase of efficiency in the accounts department, the improvement of self assessment in the accountancy department, and reduced supervision of the activities related to the accountancy department.

The decision made will also provide grounds for analysis on the effectiveness of the different accounting practices. It will seek to establish the difference in efficiency between normal auditing and statutory auditing. What method is more effective, and why? (Langdon, 2001)

Evaluate effects of the problem

There are several adverse effects being experienced by the company as a result of reduced efficiency in the accountancy department. One of the adverse effects is with regards to profitability. The company is becoming less and less profitable due to the reduced efficiency in the accountancy department. Due to the fact that there is no efficiency in the audit practice, the firm continues to loose more and more revenue.

The companys image in the marketplace and the community continues to be dented with the reduced levels of efficiency in the accountancy department. This department is also responsible for the extra involvement of other departments in trying to resolve the problems that are present in the accountancy department. The level of trust and accountability attached to the accounting department has affected the client base.

More and more clients continue to pull out of the client base due to the reduced levels of efficiency in the accounting department. The company has also found itself on the spot with regards to the laws that govern the entire practice of accountancy. The company has had to deal with lawsuits that have been filed by clients who were not satisfied with the manner in which the company conducted its accounting practices.

Making the Decision

Identify causes of the problem

The main cause of the problem is the lack of an efficient accounting system. The problem is made even worse with the involvement of extra resources in solving the problem. The lack of an efficient audit system affects the quality of the reports generated by the company through the accounting department, and this acts as the main cause of the current problem. ( Paul, 2006)

Frame alternatives

There are a number of alternatives that the company can opt for so as to counter the problem presented by the accounting department. The company can choose to do away with the current accounting department and install another one. The company can also choose to do away with the current accounting department and outsource its accounting requirement work to another organization. The company can choose to set up an interim accounting department as it looks into the problems facing the current accounting department. (Langdon, 2001)

Evaluate impacts of alternatives

Each of the alternatives presented by this situation holds a specific impact on the company. The alternatives present the company with different options with regards to the way forward. It is imperative that the company makes a decision that will change its current situation. In the event the company chooses to do away with the current accounting department and outsource its jobs to another organization,, it stands to gain as well as loose.

The company will have the opportunity to retain its customers through increasing the customer confidence in the accounting practice. The client base may increase as a result of the shift. This option might also affect the customers who had faith in the current accounting firm adversely. They may think negatively about the manner in which the company deals with its problems. This option also presents the company with a cheap option of getting its accounting needs attended to.

In the event the company should choose to install an interim accounting department while it works on the problem, it stands to gain some benefits as well as encountering some adverse effects. The benefits will include customer retention as well as employee involvement. This option will increase the confidence the clients have attached to the accounting practice being provided by the company. The company will also have a chance of training a new team that will avoid the mistakes that have been made by the previous team.

This option is very expensive. The company shall have to maintain two teams, invest time and other resources in training the new team, as well as dealing with the old team and the problem at hand. ( Paul, 2006). The best option the company might opt for is the installation of a new accounting firm with the old accounting department being made to undergo changes as the new team is trained. (Kirby, 2007).

The decision will be evaluated by how efficient the new team is with regards to the problems that were being faced by the old team. The evaluation of the decision made will also be set on how well the company is able to deal with the problem at hand while installing the new team. (Langdon, 2001).

References

Kirby, G. R. & Goodpaster, J. R. (2007). Thinking: An interdisciplinary approach to critical and creative thought (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Langdon, K. (2001). Smart things to know about decision making (1st ed.). Oxford: Capstone.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: NJ: Prentice Hall.