Organizational Culture and Ethical Retail Practices at GTS

CASE STUDY

Mr. Williams, General Manager of GTS Department Store was performing one of his favorite rituals in the morning; walking through the retail store right before opening to greet all of his employees by name. He prided himself on being a “people person” and now considered his long-time employees as family. Mr. Williams had been in retail since starting as a part-time cashier in high school and now, only five years away from retirement, he had been put in charge of one of the largest department stores in the chain, located in the Western Pacific. Originally from Pennsylvania, this promotion, however, required him to move to a small island in the Pacific with his family.

Mr. Williams immediately adapted to the island life. He quickly developed many friendships with local island professionals. In such a tight knit community, many of the island’s residents were related to each other and one did not have to look far to make a connection. Here, strong family ties and bonds were central to the culture. The island culture was hard to ignore; having significant impact on the organizational culture of the company as well. Mr. Williams felt right at home as the relationship oriented work culture fit his personal leadership style.

His store was one of two department stores on the island and at 80,000 square feet required a staff of 120 full and part-time employees. The store consisted of 22 departments, including a variety of products: from housewares and furniture to clothing, as well as jewelry and shoes. There were 24 individual cash register stations throughout the store all monitored by an in-house security force using cameras and an undercover roving patrol.

GTS Department Store made 70% of their annual sales between the months of November and December due to strong sales from the holiday season; Black Friday and Christmas boasting significant revenue. The holiday shopping season was one of Mr. Williams’ favorite times of the year. Mr. William did not mind the extra work and long hours required. This was when he felt at his best. He believed that it was times such as this that really brought out the best in his employees and was very appreciative all the hard work and effort that everyone put in. The sales floor’s team in his opinion, played a key role in the store’s success.

One morning after his daily rounds on the sales floor, he received a visit Alice, a friend of the family. Alice was in the same civic organization as his wife, Sarah, and was a loyal customer of GTS Department Store. She apologized for bothering him during the busy holiday season rush, but was curious about a double charge on her credit card. Mr. Williams welcomed the opportunity to review it with her.

Alice had saved her store receipt from the week before. On the receipt she had circled the total amount as well as the one item in question. The store receipt showed that Alice had made a single couch purchase with a credit card transaction. She then pulled out a copy of her credit card statement and showed Mr. Williams. The credit card statement showed not one purchase, but two separate, identical transactions on the same day. It had appeared as if she had purchased two couches, in two different transactions, on the same day. Clearly this was a simple mistake. He apologized for the error and told her he would take care of it by having her card credited back for the additional transaction.

The next day, Mr. Williams went to his accounting manager, Doris, with a copy of the store receipt and the credit card statement and asked her to credit back Alice’s card for one of the transactions. Doris did so and decided to just double check the inventory records. Doris pulled up the inventory sheet to verify the stock levels of the coach that had been purchased. She was surprised to find that the inventory listing showed zero left in stock. If this credit card charge was a mistake she would have expected to see one couch still in inventory from the original two couches that were ordered and delivered from the vendor to their warehouse. When she looked at the store’s copy of all the receipts for that day, she saw that there was another transaction and receipt for the second couch only hours after the first couch was purchased. Alarmed, she walked downstairs to Mr. Williams’ office to let him know about the situation.

Mr. Williams met with his security manager, Dave, and his assistant store manager, Jeff, to discuss the situation in confidence. It was the Security Department’s duty to ensure that all merchandise released was properly documented. Dave made the point that the warehouse or security staff would not have noticed anything wrong as there were two receipts showing that two couches had been bought and paid for. Upon investigation and tracking of the sales receipts and merchandise pick up slips, it was discovered that two couches had been physically removed from the warehouse and loaded onto a delivery truck. The delivery slip noted that the coaches had been delivered to Alice’s house.

The investigation turned to Joe, the warehouse employee who had signed the delivery slip. Joe admitted that he had instructed Alvin, the delivery truck driver, to deliver one couch to Alice’s address, and the other couch to an employees’ house. This was despite the fact that the delivery slip, with the two receipts attached, had Alice’s name and address on them. This was a clear indication that both couches should have been delivered to Alice’s house.

As it turned out, the second couch was not delivered to Alice’s house; it was delivered to Stephanie Jackson’s house. Stephanie was the supervisor for the furniture department at GTS Department Store. The investigation now shifted focus to Marcy, the cashier who had initiated both the sale transactions. As Marcy was being questioned, she was told that Joe from the warehouse already admitted to instructing the driver to take a second couch to another employee’s house based on the receipts that had been generated under Marcy’s employee number. Marcy adamantly claimed that she did not remember ringing up two transactions for this merchandise and that she would have remembered the purchase of two identical couches. “There must have been some mistake” she said. She claimed that maybe someone else must have inputted her employee number into the cash register to ring up the transaction so that it would look like she had made the transaction. This was doubtful as the employee numbers were only issued by management directly to the cashiers and each cashier had their own identifying number.

Dave spent that evening reviewing the security tapes and came across a transaction at

6:10 p.m. on the camera that clearly showed Marcy ringing up a purchase by Alice, with Marcy processing her credit card through the register. The security tape also showed Marcy ringing up a transaction two hours later, but with no customer present.

When Dave and Mr. Williams confronted Marcy the next day she realized that management had enough information to prove that she had been involved in theft. She immediately began telling “her” side of the story and blamed most of the problem on her supervisor, Stephanie. Marcy said that Stephanie put pressure on her to participate in this scheme. Marcy said that she “honestly” was not comfortable participating, and did not even want to go along with the scheme. Marcy defended her actions saying that other employees,

in other departments, were doing the same thing. She claimed that it was, in fact, another employee who had shown her how to save the credit card information and then use that information to later transact a “purchase” so that when merchandise was taken out of the store or warehouse through security, there was a paid receipt attached. According to Marcy, “several other employees including supervisors knew this was happening and were involved or was ‘looking the other way’”.

Mr. Williams was devastated and felt horribly betrayed. This was happening under his watch and those who were involved were some of his most trusted and longest tenured employees. He was committed to their professional development and career growth; they were treated like family. “How could they do this?” he thought. Moreover, how many other customers had been a victim of these employees and had not yet complained? How many other customers in the past few months had been victims and had not even known that their credit card had been compromised because they did not compare their receipts to their credit card statements?

At this point, all Mr. Williams could think was, “How can I stop this from ever happening again?”

Summary of Assessment Requirements

The case study assessment required students to critically analyze a workplace ethics and fraud scenario at GTS Department Store. The key requirements included:

• Understanding the Case: Review the organizational background, cultural context, and leadership style of Mr. Williams.

• Identifying Issues: Pinpoint the fraud, misconduct, and ethical dilemmas arising from the case.

• Stakeholder Analysis: Highlight the role of employees, management, customers, and security staff in the incident.

• Investigation Findings: Evaluate how theft was detected and the evidence used (inventory, receipts, security footage).

• Implications: Discuss the impact on organizational trust, customer relations, and leadership credibility.

• Recommendations: Suggest preventive measures such as policies, training, monitoring, and stronger internal controls.

• Learning Outcomes: Apply management, organizational behavior, and ethical frameworks to real-world decision-making.

Step-by-Step Mentoring Process

The academic mentor guided the student systematically through the assessment in the following way:

1. Initial Orientation

The mentor began by ensuring the student understood the scope of the case study. Together, they reviewed the entire narrative to identify the key events: Alice’s double charge, Doris’s discovery of inventory discrepancies, Joe’s involvement in delivery fraud, Marcy’s cashier manipulation, and Stephanie’s supervisory influence.

2. Breaking Down the Case into Sections

The mentor encouraged the student to break the large case into smaller, manageable parts:

• Background and organizational culture

• The fraud incident and discovery

• Employee involvement and unethical practices

• Security and leadership response

• Future preventive strategies

This made the analysis clearer and more structured.

3. Identifying Core Issues

Through guided questioning, the mentor helped the student identify issues beyond the obvious theft, such as:

• Weak internal controls (cash register monitoring, inventory checks).

• Abuse of trust in a relationship-oriented culture.

• Leadership vulnerability due to over-reliance on loyalty and family-like ties.

• Ethical breakdown at both employee and supervisory levels.

4. Linking to Theoretical Concepts

The mentor advised the student to integrate relevant management and organizational behavior theories:

• Leadership style: Mr. Williams’ people-oriented leadership worked well for morale but created blind spots in accountability.

• Organizational culture: Family-like ties fostered loyalty but also enabled collusion.

• Ethical decision-making: Employees engaged in rationalization of unethical acts (“others are doing it too”).

• Internal controls: Lack of checks enabled manipulation of credit card and receipt data.

5. Structuring the Assessment Response

The mentor guided the student to structure the paper into clear sections:

1. Introduction (case context and purpose of the analysis)

2. Key Issues (fraud, ethical breaches, control weaknesses)

3. Analysis of Stakeholders and Organizational Culture

4. Leadership Evaluation (strengths and limitations of Mr. Williams’ style)

5. Recommendations for Preventing Future Incidents

6. Conclusion (summary and reflection on lessons learned)

6. Recommendations Development

The mentor emphasized practical and theory-backed solutions, including:

• Stronger internal control systems (audit trails, restricted access to employee IDs).

• Clear fraud prevention and ethics policies.

• Employee training on workplace ethics and compliance.

• Use of advanced POS monitoring and real-time alerts.

• Anonymous reporting channels (whistleblowing).

• Periodic audits and cross-verification of sales and inventory.

7. Draft Review and Feedback

The student drafted sections based on guidance, and the mentor provided feedback on:

• Clarity of problem statement.

• Depth of analysis (avoiding mere storytelling).

• Linking real case events with theoretical frameworks.

• Ensuring recommendations were practical and aligned with the organizational context.

8. Final Refinement

The mentor helped the student refine the response for academic tone, coherence, and alignment with learning objectives. Special focus was given to ensuring that the analysis remained objective, evidence-based, and critical rather than just descriptive.

Final Outcome and Learning Objectives Achieved

Through this mentoring process, the student produced a well-structured, analytical response that:

• Met the Assessment Requirements: The paper clearly summarized the case, identified fraud mechanisms, analyzed cultural and leadership dimensions, and proposed preventive strategies.

• Demonstrated Critical Thinking: Instead of narrating events, the student critically assessed causes, implications, and preventive measures.

• Linked Theory to Practice: Applied leadership, ethics, and organizational behavior theories to explain real-world issues.

• Offered Practical Solutions: Recommendations were realistic, cost-effective, and suitable for retail operations.

• Covered Learning Outcomes:

  • ULO 1: Applied organizational management concepts to analyze workplace culture and leadership in a fraud scenario.

  • ULO 2: Evaluated the role of policies, controls, and ethical practices in preventing workplace fraud and maintaining integrity.

Boost Your Grades with Expert Assignment Guidance

Looking for a reliable way to understand how to approach your assessment? Download our professionally written sample solution to see the right structure, analysis style, and referencing methods required for top academic performance. Please note: this sample is provided for reference purposes only and should not be submitted as your own work. Submitting copied content can result in plagiarism penalties.

If you need a 100% original, plagiarism-free solution tailored to your specific requirements, our team of experienced academic writers is here to help. We create fresh, custom-written assignments that meet your university guidelines, saving you time and helping you achieve higher grades with confidence.

Why Choose a Fresh, Custom-Written Solution?

• Plagiarism-free and written from scratch

• Tailored to your topic and requirements

• Expert academic writers across all subjects

• Proper formatting and referencing included

• Delivered on time with guaranteed quality

Don’t take chances with your academic success. Use the sample as a guide, and if you want the best results, order a custom solution designed just for you.

Download Sample Solution

Order Fresh Assignment