Westchester Distributing
Westchester Distributing
In the case, the obvious issue was Westchester Distributing’s internal controls, but less obvious and just important were the company owner’s span of attention, tone at the top, and the incentives/focus management put on outputs.
As a result of the company’s high growth from 20 employees to 60 employees within eight year, internal controls had not been given attention. With this said, simple controls should have been put in place as the company reached growth goals. One control Vince did have in place was having Roberts review and sign all expense reports, but this would not help if Roberts was involved in falsifying. Roberts, VP of admissions, was involved in the business and had both physical control of assets and accounted for the assets. Physical control and accounting for the assets need to be separated (segregation of duties). A solution could be an employee from another department reconciling the expense reports and receipts. An independent party does not have incentive to hide irregularities, creating a greater threat of exposure to individuals committing fraud. The increase exposure risk deters many situations.
Before the 1980s, Vince a small number of employees and he his span of control encompassed everyone. With small numbers more direct attention could be given everyone. Although with 60 employees, Vince’s span of control was stretched. Vince now had to delegate task and focus on what was important. In this transition from a direct to a less direct management style, Vince lost two way communication with his employees. Information was going down, but information was not going up. Mr. Mario’s letter indicated that his voice was not being heard. More a face-to-face interaction needs to be taken to have open communication and avoid the “Wizard of Oz” approach. When employees feel heard and empowered, they will alert management more quickly to problem.
Another issue that goes hand in hand with communication is Westchester’s poor
In the case, the obvious issue was Westchester Distributing’s internal controls, but less obvious and just important were the company owner’s span of attention, tone at the top, and the incentives/focus management put on outputs.
As a result of the company’s high growth from 20 employees to 60 employees within eight year, internal controls had not been given attention. With this said, simple controls should have been put in place as the company reached growth goals. One control Vince did have in place was having Roberts review and sign all expense reports, but this would not help if Roberts was involved in falsifying. Roberts, VP of admissions, was involved in the business and had both physical control of assets and accounted for the assets. Physical control and accounting for the assets need to be separated (segregation of duties). A solution could be an employee from another department reconciling the expense reports and receipts. An independent party does not have incentive to hide irregularities, creating a greater threat of exposure to individuals committing fraud. The increase exposure risk deters many situations.
Before the 1980s, Vince a small number of employees and he his span of control encompassed everyone. With small numbers more direct attention could be given everyone. Although with 60 employees, Vince’s span of control was stretched. Vince now had to delegate task and focus on what was important. In this transition from a direct to a less direct management style, Vince lost two way communication with his employees. Information was going down, but information was not going up. Mr. Mario’s letter indicated that his voice was not being heard. More a face-to-face interaction needs to be taken to have open communication and avoid the “Wizard of Oz” approach. When employees feel heard and empowered, they will alert management more quickly to problem.
Another issue that goes hand in hand with communication is Westchester’s poor