Downsizing Misinterpreted Due to Administrator’s Failures

Topics: Hospital, Public Relations Words: 563 Pages: 3

Table of Contents

Overview
Plan
Variance
References

Overview

The unfavorable situation was caused by the improper actions of the administrator who failed to focus on the reasons for the downsizing and its impact on the nurses during the interview. As a result, the information was interpreted wrongly. The main facts of concern are the video showing several former employees and their patients and the community blog called “SaveOurLovingNurses.com.”

Plan

Under these circumstances, the task of primary importance is to address the mass media which have provided the information concerning the downsize and the activists who initiated the campaign. Thus, the following measures are suggested.

A spokesperson should be chosen. Ideally, it should be a respectful person known to the public and journalists.
One or several staff members who will monitor the mass media and social networks should be chosen.
The exact data about the downsize, its causes, and consequences should be structured and adapted to ordinary people.
Since the social media response should be given as soon as possible, it is necessary to make precise information available (Franklin & Parton, 2014). The website of the hospital and social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, should be utilized.
The meeting with the activists should be scheduled. The spokesperson should focus on the causes of downsizing and explain its necessity. It is equally important to emphasize that the nurses’ dignity was protected.
It is necessary to collaborate with the local television station: the correct information should be broadcast.
In the long-term perspective, it will be significant to concentrate on the employees’ performance and the conditions to recreate the image of the hospital. Internet media are supposed to become the main instrument.

Variance

The previously developed plans and the actual results are represented in the table. The added information is also included in the table.

	Sales (gross revenues)	Discounts	Net Sales	Providing Lab Testing Costs	Gross Contribution	Direct Costs for Salaries	Net Contribution
Plans	$3 500 000	$325 000	$3 175 000	$1 150 500	$2 024 500	$870 000	$1 154 500
Actual results	#3 500 000	$350 000	$3 150 000	$1 400 500	$1 749 500	$870 000	$879 500

To calculate the product mix variance, it is necessary to know the difference between the actual gross contribution and the planned gross contribution (Bragg, 2012).

Plans Net Sales = Sales – Discounts Net Sales = $3 500 000 – $325 000 = $3 175 000 Gross Contribution = Net Sales – Lab Testing Costs Gross Contribution = $3 175 000 – $1 150 500 = $2 024 500	Actual Results Net Sales = Sales – Discounts Net Sales= $3 500 000 – $350 000 = $3 150 000 Gross Contribution = Net Sales – Lab Testing Costs Gross Contribution = $3 150 000 – $1 400 500 = $1 749 000
Product Mix Variance = Actual Gross Contribution – Planned Gross Contribution Product Mix Variance = $1 749 000 – $2 024 500 = – $275 000

In order to calculate the price variance, one should use the following formula taking the necessary data given above.

Price Variance = Actual Net Sales – Planned Net Sales

Price Variance = $3 150 000 – $3 175 000 = – $25 000

Thus, in this case, the product mix variance experienced by the laboratory service equals – $275 000, and the price variance equals – $25 000.

References

Bragg, S. M. (2012). The essential controller: An introduction to what every financial manager must know. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Franklin, B., & Parton, N. (2014). Social work, the media and public relations. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.