Toxic Culture: Unit Manager and Organization
        The following case study is based on the notion that governmental organizations that are expected to follow pre-determined guidelines (Appendix A & Appendix B) are altering the legislatives rules for individual self-serving purposes which don’t necessarily benefit the organization as a whole. This act in itself leads to a toxic environment. The current manner in which organizations are filling leadership positions is substandard and does not honor the BCNU contract that clearly outlines the method in which successful candidate selection should occur for DCL 2 leadership positions. Personal relationships, inappropriate relationships within staff members and leading hospital unit managers haze the judgment in leaders and as such poor decisions are made. Clearly, the problem presented within this case study is inappropriate relationships within professions create poor decisions and selections of individuals who do not posse the most credentials, formal education, experience and maturity to fulfill the job requirements. 
        This organization change case study will focus on contributing behaviours that form a toxic unit manager within an organization.  Leadership positions in hospital units, such as charge nurses, may either “positively or negatively influence outcomes for organizations, providers and, ultimately, patients” (Cummings, Lee, MacGregor, Davey, Wong, Paul, Stafford, 2008; pg. 240). Selection of candidates of these positions must be followed by the guidelines set out by government officials as stated within the BCNU contract. However, repeated violations are occurring and the contract within government employees is not being honoured.  Staff are forced to join groups of delinquent females on nursing units in order to be recognized with the unit manager as relationships with the unit manager and the dominant groups of girls in nursing units determines who will be the successful candidate of a DCL 2 leadership position. With the current education levels of graduating nurses being at a minimum a bachelors, there must be more development of the guidelines in regards to this topic to ensure the candidate that is selected for a leadership nursing position has the most experience, education and overall positive characteristics. Unfortunately, due to inappropriate relationships within the hospital setting between managers and employees, the leadership nursing positions are being granted to individuals who do not hold the most credentials, as outlined by the BCNU Collective Agreement Contract, and as a result these leadership nursing positions are being awarded based on “personal relationships” rather than “professional relationships”.
The Case Study
      Seven applicants have applied for a leadership positon claused as DCL 2 within the BCNU collective agreement contract. All seven applicants ranged in education, experience and maturity. The two most senior staff members holding the most seniority pulled out of the interview process due to continual negative comments on work performance by the unit manager.  The first applicant has been nursing for 19 years with a large range of experiences, held her BSN, six months away from graduating with her MSN and held the most seniority and was extremely professional and mature. The second candidate had all the same qualities except she was the second individual with the most sonority and was pregnant. The remaining three candidates were very friendly with the unit manager and held extremely inappropriate relationships with not only members of the unit but also the unit manager. Their maturity level was substandard (one of the applicants had an issue with constantly pulling down her pants and exposing herself to others on the floor; another candidate was an extremely poor decision maker during stressful situations such as when a patient deteriorates, and the third candidate was in appearance as the unit manager herself).  When the unit manager called the most senior of the applicants, applicant A was informed that she required to stay in the unit for a further one year before a leadership position would be granted to her. Applicant A was well aware of how misleading the unit manager was and since no one would stand up for applicant A, she simply agreed under distress. 
        The second senior candidate was informed that she was not the “selected one” in the view of the unit manager. The second applicant was pregnant and was informed by the unit manger that if she wanted the position she could have it but she was not the individual the unit manager had in mind of awarding the DCL 2 position. It is important to note that neither of the top two applicants were offered an interview, a clear direct violation of the BCNU contract. Both of these two females were extremely professional, made excellent clinical decisions and did not belong to any delinquent dominating female groups on the unit that contributed to the toxic environment. 
         The remaining three participants were all close friends with the unit manager and belonged to the `popular` group of girls whose mentality were much more immature than the average professional. The first female held inappropriate relationships with leading officials and deemed this as her privilege to be awarded the charge nurse position. There have been many conversations that were held in the unit on how this applicant knew a unit manager from another hospital and she would be assisted in achieving a leadership position based on not her credentials, but her relationship with a unit manager. This individual also had some psychological issues as she repeatedly had the habit of pulling her pants down at work exposing herself to numerous staff members, patients and families. This behavior continues as this individual feels her professional duties are extinguished due to her close relationship with a leading official. The next applicant continually contributed to the toxic environment by bragging about how many friends she had on Facebook and held inappropriate relationship with physicians. This individual was extremely poor when it came to make split second decisions in a stressful situation. There so happened to be an incident that resulted in the death of a patient due to this individual’s lack of knowledge. She got away with the incident as her inappropriate relationship with one of the unit physician, charge nurse and friends from the unit came to her rescue and this individual is again practicing. If anyone were to challenge this individual, that person would be the targeted individual that would have to endure tremendous bullying and grief. Hence, this applicant gets away from many negligent incidents involving patients. Her continual excuse is to blame someone else for her negligent actions and performance. The remaining candidate was in appearance as the unit manager and held close affiliation with the above two females. Their relationship was less than professional and they demonstrated this on the unit repeatedly. This applicant has no higher form of education in the nursing profession. The unit manager focused on how this individual prospered in her business of photography. The remaining applicant displayed her photography business in the work area repeatedly. Applicant A (the most senior with 21 years nursing experience) was notified by another staff member that the unit manager favors individuals that look like her (skinny and white).  
        These three applicants all received a formal interview and the successful candidate for the DCL 2 position was awarded not based on the governmental agreement contract but on physical appearance and non-nursing experience. There are clear repercussions to those whom challenge the status quo and question leading officials. This is why inappropriate relationships are valued in the hospitals; it gets you promoted.
Conclusion
        This organization has violated many governmental contracts as the judgments of leading officials are regularly hazed by the artifacts of inappropriate relationships. These inappropriate relationships cause destruction to the organization as individuals with special preferences view this as there means of doing whatever they want with no consequences and as a result form a toxic environment. This facility is evolving into a teaching hospital but there is no academia linked to this facility with its front line workers. Government official guidelines are in place to ensure all individuals are treated in the same manner and no one individual has preference over another. As this case study clearly demonstrates change needs to occur in order to stop the continual toxic relationships that form the toxic environment.