Demonstrating Effective Leadership

Demonstrating Effective Leadership

Case Study 12: Running the Numbers at the State Health Department

By: Lisa Stuckey

Capella University

Case Study 12: Running the Numbers at the State Health Department talked about the effects of gambling in the workplace. Dr. Quaid Jefferson, the Division Director over Vital Statistics noticed a marked decrease in output from his department. One day one of the employees, Henry, Paxton, a Statistician for the State Health Department, was feeling his job was getting dull and uneventful. So he decided to go the race track and put some money on a horse. While he was leaving he decided to approach a co-worker, Bob Hicks, and ask him if he wanted to go in on a bet with him.  Bob agreed and gave Henry some money to go in on the bet. Bob and Henry’s horse won and decided to bet on the same horse the next day.  The next day they won again and coworker, Sally Buchanan, overheard and decided to join in. Every Thursday and Friday for the next four weeks the three played the horses. The word spread throughout the organization and more and more people ended up joining in. Meanwhile, Dr. Quaid Jefferson, the Division Director over Vital Statistics started noticing  discrepancies and a decrease in the employees output. He started asking his secretary and other people he trusted on what might be going on. After he found out what was going on he decided to draft a memo to the employees prohibiting gambling during work hours and take it to his boss, Dr. Carmines. Dr, Carmines read the letter and decided to ball it up and throw it away. Dr. Carmines decided on this because he and Dr. Jefferson engaged in the gambling also. The gambling was not illegal and if they put that in place for the other workers they would then too have to comply and Dr. Carmines did not want that.

Gambling during work hours can violate corporate policies and the law. But even if it doesn’t violate any policies or laws it shouldn’t be done in the workplace as you can see from this case study because it started to affect the productivity of the office. But in this case the leader participated so he really can’t say anything to the employees about it. The office simply isn't an appropriate place for gambling. It's the place where we're supposed to work. Things that interfere with doing our job should be done before or after work. The same goes for talking politics at work (BusinessWeek.com, 1/28/08), having sex, drinking single malt whisky, surfing the Web for bargains, or yakking with friends on our cell phones(BusinessWeek.com, 01/28/08). The issue is how much time it takes away from your work and how it affects productivity. It can also cause problems if someone gets upset when they aren’t winning and can cause conflict and confusions in the workplace. The fact that the head of the organization or office sanctions a practice says little or nothing about whether the practice is justifiable or not. Bottom line: Some companies allow or encourage office pools, and perhaps they always will. But they shouldn't, and if they take a few moments to reflect on the real risks that these activities pose, the smart ones won't (Weinstein, 2008). In this case study it shows it’s not smart to allow the workers to gamble during work hours. Gambling is also addictive and can affect the behavior of a person. Over time gambling can produce problems in major areas of life such as poor job performance, arguments with family, impaired driving charge, financial trouble, depression, and health problems. Also gambling can cause less control over time spent using and less control over behavior. All of these can cause a problem for organizations and businesses and that’s why gambling should not be permitted during work hours.