The case exemplified disagreement as one of the major complexities. Neither Healy, the board, nor the DOC was in agreeance throughout this case. According to the case, “The board and Healy would end up on a collision course.” Which in fact did occur between both the board and the DOC on numerous occasions, for example, “Dr. Healy firing two of our top people in disaster services is just too much.” “Several board members and veteran administrators thought that she should have suspended the employees with pay.” The continuous disagreements between Healy and those around her formed due to Healy’s work ethic. Healy’s background and motives were different compared to her colleagues, which is why there were a substantial amount of disagreements. According to Stillman, Healy would be categorized as a “professional careerists.” Stillman describes professional careerist as “various groups of personnel with specialized expertise in specific fields.” According to Lois Wise, Healy would be categorized as having normative and affective motives. “Normative orientations are based on social values and norms of what is proper and appropriate and include a desire to serve the public interest; to fulfill a sense of duty to the community; and to express a unique sense of loyalty to the government.” Lois describes affective motive as, “a deep belief in the importance of a particular program to society.” Healy illustrated the aforementioned motives on several occasions. For example, Healy did not let her tumor prevent her from helping others, instead, she embraced it. “Her unexpected recovery played a role in her decision to take the Red Cross job.” Examples of Healy’s normative motives are as follows, “She was the first female director of the National Institutes of Health and as dean of the Ohio State University medical school.” Almost everyone disagreed with Healy, and disapproved of her “Head on style.” As a professional careerist having affective and normative motives, naturally, Healy completed what her job entailed while those around her continuously disagreed with her actions. 2. What were the forces behind the issues raised by the case? The overall forces included numerous issues such as when the F.D.A “asked a judge to hold the red cross in contempt of the 1993 consent decree and to authorize serious financial penalties----$10,000 a day per violation, which could amount to more than $10 million a year." Moreover, the FDA also delivered “a 21-page notice listing all the violations at the headquarter itself.” Lastly, “Red cross blood centers would keep testing blood until the tests delivered desired results.” Healy exclaimed she found that some Red Cross officials possessed a startling “lack of concern for patients.” According to Lois Wise, the previously mentioned issues that were conducted by the employees of Red Cross would be considered a rational motive.
…show more content…
“Rational self-serving motives by definition are not public service motives regardless of the social or public good they produce. We take the perspective here that human beings are complex and contradictory and indeed may embark on public service careers or perform acts of significant public service primarily based on their own human needs and self-interest." The majority of the issues that occurred throughout this case were from employees who were not true to public service, they acted with selfish intent, and they put themselves first versus the public. Healy exclaimed in a confidential memo that “Red Crossers will give you the shirt off their back, but will as easily put a knife in your back.” 3. Could the problems in this case study have been averted? No, the problems could not have been avoided. Everyone asides from Healy were already content and accustom to how things were running throughout the organization. Healy followed protocol, while those around her followed a practice and became set in their ways. As previously mentioned, Healy was a professional careerist who sought to help people. Healy illustrated normative and affective motives, while those around her illustrated rational motives. They were selfish and content with handling problems their way, neither Healy nor any other person would have been able to prevent the problems that were occurring. 4. If so, how?
“Rational self-serving motives by definition are not public service motives regardless of the social or public good they produce. We take the perspective here that human beings are complex and contradictory and indeed may embark on public service careers or perform acts of significant public service primarily based on their own human needs and self-interest." The majority of the issues that occurred throughout this case were from employees who were not true to public service, they acted with selfish intent, and they put themselves first versus the public. Healy exclaimed in a confidential memo that “Red Crossers will give you the shirt off their back, but will as easily put a knife in your back.” 3. Could the problems in this case study have been averted? No, the problems could not have been avoided. Everyone asides from Healy were already content and accustom to how things were running throughout the organization. Healy followed protocol, while those around her followed a practice and became set in their ways. As previously mentioned, Healy was a professional careerist who sought to help people. Healy illustrated normative and affective motives, while those around her illustrated rational motives. They were selfish and content with handling problems their way, neither Healy nor any other person would have been able to prevent the problems that were occurring. 4. If so, how?