Case+1

Facts On January 3, 2006, Susan Kim made a trip to Baron Art Mart, Inc. in search of a calligraphy pen set. At approximately 2:20 p.m. Loss Prevention Manager Jimmie Lee suspected Mrs. Kim of shoplifting. Mr. Lee says that Mrs. Kim made a sudden movement to her pocket and noticed a calligraphy pen set missing, even though he remembers them being fully stocked earlier that afternoon. Although Mrs. Kim says she was in a hurry to make it to an appointment she had later that afternoon, her quick pace while leaving the store caused Mr. Lee’s suspicion to deepen. Mr. Lee began to follow Mrs. Kim and because of his fear of losing her, he began to shout. Mrs. Kim says that his shouting included foul language. Once Mr. Lee was close enough, he grabbed her by the arm and brought her back to the store. Mrs. Kim lost her balance and fell, hitting her back on one of the store’s checkout counters. Mr. Lee’s force while grabbing her arm resulted in Mrs. Kim’s loss of balance and in turn, the fall, according to Susan Kim in Exhibit 2. Mrs. Kim said she felt severe pain right after the fall and could not move so one of the store’s employees helped her. She was told that if she did not go to the Loss Prevention room the police would be called. Mr. Lee told Mrs. Kim that he was not able to discuss why she was being detained, even though he asked her if she had forgotten to pay for something. Once in the Loss Prevention room, Mrs. Kim was told that the investigation would begin once the store’s manager, Jennifer Parker, returned from a meeting. Unfortunately for Mrs. Kim, Mrs. Parker did not return to the store until 3:30 p.m. Mrs. Parker told Mrs. Kim why she was being detained and Mrs. Kim denied shoplifting and emptied her pockets. Not finding a calligraphy pen set, Mrs. Parker apologized, gave her a twenty five dollar gift certificate, and let her leave the store. Because of Mrs. Kim’s severe back pain, she went to the Cedar Sinai Hospital emergency room. On the same night of the fall, Mrs. Kim’s back was operated on. She had two surgeries after the first one was unsuccessful and her back was still unable to return to its original state. Her doctor has diagnosed her with an abnormal degeneration of the spine. This degeneration allows her to never walk again or sit down for more than ten minutes at a time, forcing her to never work again. Mrs. Kim has quit her job as a regional salesperson for a pharmaceutical company and is seeking compensation not only for her medical bills in the amount of $765,000 but for her future loss of income in the amount of $500,000.
 * FACTS & Issues **

Issues Before determining whether or not Baron Art Mart, Inc. is responsible for Susan Kim’s medical bills and future loss of income, it is important to identify the issues in this case. Baron Art Mart, Inc. may be responsible legally and even ethically. To determine if they are liable, the standard procedures of Loss Prevention must be known. It would be helpful to see what boundaries Loss Prevention Manager, Jimmie Lee, crossed, if any, when this incident occurred. The laws of detainment must be closely looked at, as well as the way Mr. Lee handled the customer and the situation. Knowing exactly how many minutes constitutes as reasonable time, and more importantly unreasonable time. Knowing what reasonable time is would help in determining if false imprisonment was committed. For ethical purposes, it is important to know if Mr. Lee asked if Mrs. Kim was okay after she fell.If reasonable manner, reasonable time, and acting ethically after the incident are found, then it is crucial to understand if the amount she is asking for is reasonable. Once finding the reasonable amount, after being found responsible, all debts will be relieved in a timely manner by Baron Art Mart, Inc.

After reviewing Exhibit 3 in Mrs. Kim’s letter dated February 18, 2006, we determined that we need to use several types of arithmetical methods to find out her real income for the last fifteen years. With the use of Microsoft Excel and its embedded statistical functions, we were able to simply find the mean, median, standard deviation, and variance of her past real income. In addition, with the finding of Mrs. Kim’s mean income, we were able to use the outcome to forecast her future earnings.
 * 1.**

Before we began doing any arithmetical calculations, we initially converted each price index from percent by dividing by one hundred to give us the adjusted price index. We then divided the gross income by the adjusted price index to come up with Mrs. Kim’s real income for the years she worked. The average of her real income from the years 1991 to 2005 is $37,760.48 which was arrived by dividing the sum of her last fifteen years real income by fifteen. When we arranged her real income in the order of value, we found the median which is also known as the midpoint. Since fifteen is an odd number we used the 8th number for the midpoint of this set, which is $37,853.88. Furthermore, we concluded that the standard deviation was 653.43 which is the square root of the variance. One theoretical way to think about the standard deviation is that it is a measure of how spread out the bell shape is. The normal distribution is a bell-shaped graph and the bell will shape steeper if the standard deviation is smaller. Therefore, the bell-shaped graph in this case will be significantly flat based on the standard deviation number we found. The variance of 426,970.80 describes how far the values of her real income each year lie from the average income in a bell-shaped graph.

Based on the statistical results above, we can use the mean income to forecast Mrs. Kim’s future earnings. We arrived to this conclusion due to the low value of standard deviation in comparison to the average income. We can forecast Mrs. Kim’s ten-year future income by multiplying the mean of $37,760.48 by ten to equal $377,604.80. However, there are many factors that we have to take into consideration which may make us overstate and understate her future income. One such factor would be the inflation rate. As far as we know, the inflation rate changes every year. If the inflation rate grows faster than the previous year, the amount of her future income would be insufficient. To the contrary, if the inflation rate goes up slower as we expect, the amount she awarded would be too high.  __ Another factor might be Mrs. Kim’s position in the company. If she was not injured during 2006, there may have been a possibility which she may have been laid off or fired during the remainder of the ten years. In the scenario if she was laid off, the compensation we pay her would be higher than we anticipate. If Mrs. Kim receives a promotion during the next ten years, her salary will be more than we determined. In addition, we need to consider the company’s factor into our case as well. If the company she works for downsize and cut her salary due to economy, than the amount which she will be compensated will be too high. __

Q2-3 After reviewing and statistically calculating the Exhibit 3 in the case of BARON ART MART, INC. we concluded the reasonable compensation for Mrs. Kim would be $465,621.84. The procedures are as follow: First of all, we found the mean of Mrs. Kim’s earnings from 1991 to 2005 would be $37,760.48, and then we rounded the mean to $37,760.00 as Mrs. Kim’s average real income. Then we used the average real income as Mrs. Kim’s projected future real income from the year of 2006 to the year of 2015, by adding them up, we concluded her total amount of 2006-2015’s real income would be $377,600.00. Secondly, we divided the Price Index by 100 to determine the Adjusted Price Index for the year of 1991 to the year of 2005. The Price Index is an estimated average of prices for a given class of goods and services in a given area, which is very crucial to us to find out the reasonable compensation for Mrs. Kim. The Price Index is statistically designed to calculate the approximately prices as a whole, which is vary in different periods or different geographical locations. In order to conclude the estimated Mrs. Kim’s Adjusted Price Index in her area of the year 2006 to the year of 2015. We used the value of the variable of Price Index of 1991 to 2005 to predict the variable of the Price Index in the future of the years of 2006 to 2015. For calculating the future Price Index, we used Office Excel to draw the scatter diagrams of the Price Index, and then we found the liner of Regression, and found the equation of the Regression line, which was used to predict the future Income Index. By using the Regression Equation, the Price Index of the year 2006 to the year of 2015 equal to 0.040 times the number of the years, then plus 1.318 (Y=0.040x+1.318). By using this equation we calculated the future Price Index in Mrs. Kim’s area of 2006 to 2015. Thirdly, we found the Mrs. Kim’s Net Real Income of 2006 to 2015, by subtracting income tax that Mrs. Kim will have to pay in those future years, which would be $30,208.00 every year. Then we used the Net Real Income times the future Price Index that we had found to determine the Net Actual Income of the year 2006 to the year of 2015, which would be $650,242.30. But the value of Net Actual Income was based on each year’s currency value from 2006 to 2015 and we needed to pay Mrs. Kim in the year of 2006, the currency should be based on the value of 2006. The value of currency of 2006 is higher than the years after, so if we pied Mr. Kim’s estimated compensation based on the 2006’s currency value we would overestimate the amount of money and overpay her, which would be unfair to Baron Mart, Inc. So, fourthly, we used the Financial Accounting concept of Present Value; we determined the compensation based on the 2006’s currency value, by using the present value rate of 8% to determine the Present Value, which would be $465,621.84. So the total amount of money that Baron Mart has to pay for Mrs. Kim as the reasonable compensation would be $465,621.84. Although we strictly followed the statistic formulas and all the macroeconomic theories, there are still several factors and elements that may affect Mrs. Kim’s future income. The first main factor is inflation rate. If the inflation rate rises faster than we estimated, we would underestimate the compensation and Mrs. Kim would be paid unfairly low. On the other hand, if the inflation rate rises slower than we thought, we would end up overestimating the compensation and Mrs. Kim would be overpaid. The second factor is the price index, the price index is based on the supply and demand of an area in a certain year, so we could not estimate very accurate price index, if the price index grows faster than we calculated we would overestimate the compensation, and if the price index grows slower, we would underestimate the compensation. The third factor is the salary rate of Mrs. Kim. The salary rate depends on the company Derk. As a salesperson for the company Derk, Mrs. Kim could be promoted in the future or be fired, the salary rate would be affected and end up paying Mrs. Kim unfair low or high compensation in this law suit case. There are so many other factors like new technologies, government fiscal and monetary policies that would affect Mrs. Kim’s future income. And also there are several other unpredictable accidents that might affect Mrs. Kim’s future income that we are not able to put them into the account of calculating the compensation now. In one word, we followed all statistic equations and economic theories, and did all the reasonable calculations, so this $465,621.84 is the most appropriate amount that we could find.

Works Cited Sullivan, Michael. "Describing the Relation between Two Variable." //Statistics: Informed Decisions Using Data//. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. 194-247. Print.

Kimmel, Paul D., Donald E. Kieso, and Jerry J. Weygandt. "Time Value of Maney." //Financial Accounting Tools for Business Decision Making//. Hoboken: Wiley, 2007. C-1--16. Print.

Ethical part The categorical imperative is the moral laws that bind within rational beings, which means that no matter what we wish to do, we need to follow those categorical imperative laws, otherwise, the action that we want to do is not applicable in the moral world. For example in the case, Baron Art Mart cannot have their employees to put their hands on every customer and hurt them and then put them in imprisonment for more than thirty minutes, unless the store authorities had enough proofs that Mrs. Kim had shoplifted the calligraphy pen, the authorities could retain her in the Loss Prevention room for the less than thirty minutes. As rational beings those categorical imperative laws cannot be chosen from, they are not optional but mandatory, we have to unconditionally follow them. And there are three formulations of the Categorical Imperative that Kant gave us, these three formulations state three conditions or aspects an action much to have to be a moral action, “For an action to be a moral action, (1) it must be amenable to being made consistently universal; (2) it must respect rational begins as ends on themselves; and (3) it must stem from, and respect, the autonomy of rational begins. There three formal conditions are all derivable from an analysis of reason and of what it means to be a rational being.” (64) The first is the principle of Universalizability, which holds that if an action is morally right, it must be amenable to being made consistently universal. In the Baron Art Mart case, if hurting customers and false imprisoning them were not morally wrong, and because the employees of Baron Art Mart, Jimmie Lee suspected Mrs. Lim had shoplifted the calligraphy pen, so Jimmie Lee assumed that he had the right to grab Mrs. Lim’s arm which led to hurt Mrs. Zee, and use foul language, and then false imprisoned her for more than thirty minute. If those series of measures were ethical right, all the stores would be ethically allow their employees to put hands on any customers, use foul language, and put any customers in Loss Prevention rooms, if employee think they are suspect, and eventually all the stores started treating customers like Mrs. Kim, all customers would be afraid of shopping, which would lead to hurt every store, and even hurt the local economy, which mean that those conducts cannot be consistently universalized. So from the categorical imperative of view, those conducts are not moral. The second formulation is to respect rational begins as ends on themselves,. Respecting dignity of persons is stemmed from deontological theory, since the formulations require that if the action is morally right, it must respect rational begins as ends on themselves, which means respect others dignities. A rational being is conscious of being a person is worthwhile, has dignity, and is worthy of respect, so we should be treated as an end, with dignity and respect. (65) So we should respect others, respect rational begins as ends on themselves. In the case, employees of Baron Art Mart did not respected Mrs. Kim’s dignity, because the employee used foul language. And Mrs. Kim was escorted to the Loss Prevention room in front of at least twenty-five other customers, and then had been imprisoned for more than thirty minutes; those conducts all show that Baron Art Mart’s employee did not respect Mrs. Kim’s dignity, which is morally wrong. All in all, according to categorical imperative and the three formulations, Baron Art Mart’s employees should not have hurt Mr. Kim, and false imprisoned her.   Work Cited  De, George Richard T. //Business Ethics//. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006. Print.

Baron Art Mart’s claim that they met the requirements of an authorized detention will not relieve them from liability under the cause of action of false imprisonment. Under certain circumstances, storeowners do have the right to protect themselves from what they believe to be shoplifting cases. However, a court will find that Mr. Lee’s conduct during the incident was not reasonable and did not meet all of the necessary requirements to constitute an authorized detention. The law states that when a claim of false imprisonment is brought against a merchant, it can potentially avoid liability by citing Green Code Crim.Pro.Art. 215, which states: “A peace officer, merchant, or a specifically authorized employee of a merchant, may use reasonable force to detain a person for questioning on the merchant’s premises, for a reasonable length of time, when he has a reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed theft of goods held for sale by the merchant, regardless of the actual value of the good. The detention shall not constitute false imprisonment.” This article can be broken down into five clear requirements. They are: 1) The person detaining the customer must have authorization to do so. 2) This person must have reasonable cause for believing a theft is taking place. 3) They must conduct the detention in a reasonable manner. 4) The detention must occur on merchant’s premise. 5) The detention must begin and end in a reasonable time period. The case Roy Thompson ET. Al. v. Paul C. Leblanc ET. Al. deals directly with a merchant’s right to detain and arrest shoplifters and specifically cites this article. The case rules in favor of the merchant (LeBlanc), and provides a specific set of instances which prove that they met all five of these requirements Of these requirements, three are clearly met and will likely not even be disputed by Mrs. Kim. The person doing the detaining was Jimmy Lee, the Loss Prevention Manager. He was specifically authorized by the storeowner to make necessary detentions. Mr. Lee also had reasonable cause to believe that a theft had occurred. The Thompson v. LeBlanc case showed that a “suspicious” move and an empty hanger on the rack in question provides sufficient cause. These are virtually identical circumstances in Baron’s case. Mrs. Kim made a sudden move to her pocket, walked quickly away with her pockets visibly stuffed, and Mr. Lee observed that a calligraphy set was missing from a previously full rack. To meet the fourth requirement, it is consistent with both Mr. Lee and Mrs. Kim’s accounts that the detention occurred on store property. The customer was admittedly apprehended before she had left the store. Unfortunately, the failure to meet the other two requirements will most likely cause Baron to lose the case should it go to trial. The courts will most likely find that the detention by Mr. Lee was not conducted in a reasonable manner. In the Thompson v. LeBlanc case, it was established that Mr. LeBlanc did not threaten or harm Mrs. Thompson. He politely asked her to re-enter the store and immediately explained to her the reasoning behind his request. In Baron’s case, Mr. Lee grabbed Mrs. Kim by the arm and shoved her back into the store, causing her to fall and injure her back on the way down. She was also threatened with police intervention if she did not go to the Loss Prevention room, and was then escorted there in front of several customers, causing her extreme embarrassment. Once she arrived in the back room, Mrs. Kim was told the investigation could not begin until the manager got there, who was an hour later than expected. The fact that Mrs. Kim sat in the room for an hour with severe back pain will constitute a breach in the store’s requirement to deal with the detainment in a reasonable time frame. Should the case go to trial, Baron would argue that Mr. Lee felt he had exhausted all of his other options and felt that physically restraining Mrs. Kim was the only remaining possibility. He is the Loss Prevention Manager and it is quite probably his main duty to prevent shoplifting. The fact that Mrs. Kim fell was simply an unfortunate accident. Also, it is protocol for the store manager to be present for investigations of this nature. Parker, the store manager, was supposed to arrive very shortly after the incident took place. The fact that she was an hour late was a completely unexpected circumstance that could not have been reasonably foreseen by Mr. Lee. Unfortunately, neither of these counter-arguments will be strong enough to hold up in court. The Thompson v. LeBlanc case clearly outlines the criteria that must be met in order for the detainment to be conducted in what they consider a reasonable manner. Some of these criteria include: the authorized employee cannot threaten the customer with arrest, he cannot use force against the customer, he must promptly inform the customer of the reasons for their detention and he cannot detain the customer in public in front of others. Mr. Lee violated all four of these criteria. Furthermore, it will not matter that Mr. Lee could not have foreseen the manager being an hour late for the investigation. It must be taken into account that Mrs. Kim was vocal about her injuries and that keeping her for an hour was an unreasonably long time, considering her potential need for medical assistance. By satisfying only three of the five requirements of an authorized detention, Mr. Lee will render Green Code Crim.Pro.Art. 215 useless, making Baron Art Mart, Inc. liable for the false imprisonment of Mrs. Kim.
 * 4.**

Assuming that Baron is liable for false imprisonment, and assuming that Mrs. Kim is deemed unable to locate another job in the future due to her injuries, the court is likely to award her compensation for both her medical expenses and loss of future income. When it comes to the loss of future income, the law states: “The plaintiff is entitled to further compensation if the capacity to earn in the future has been taken from the plaintiff, either in whole or in part.” Since it has been established that Baron will most likely be held liable for false imprisonment, and that this led to her diminished earning capacity, it stands to reason that, by law, she will be entitled to some amount of compensatory damages. The question on hand is how much she deserves. The case of Caldwell v. Kahler (1993) lays out for us what steps need to be taken by both Baron and Mrs. Kim in order to come up with a reasonable number. In the Caldwell/Kahler case, Mr. Caldwell was in a car accident and developed a similar crippling injury to Mrs. Kim’s. In theses types of cases, several monetary issues need to be recognized and then calculated for damages to be given. We need a satisfactory basis for estimating what the probable earnings would have been had there been no tort. Mr. Caldwell had an extremely inconsistent work history, which made it difficult to project what income he would have made in the future. Mrs. Kim, however, has already provided her wages for the past fifteen years, which are shown in Exhibit 3. Her earnings have been remarkably consistent, which will make it infinitely easier to project her future lost wages. It is also extremely important to calculate the damages as net income after taxes. The law states that the net income rule embodies the principle that “damages in personal-injury actions should reflect, as closely as possible, the plaintiff’s actual loss (Tenore supra, 67 N.J. at 477, 341 A.2d 613).” Throughout Mrs. Kim’s future work career, she would have had to pay taxes on everything she made. To receive the amount in tax-free damages that she would have made in taxable wages would be unjust. This was the case in the Caldwell trial. Neither Caldwell nor the defendant provided evidence of net income, which resulted in the jury rewarding Mr. Caldwell a substantially larger amount than he should have received. By calculating Mrs. Kim’s net income, Baron should avoid this problem. Lastly, we will need to discount her future income to its present value. This calculation is essential because, in theory, Mrs. Kim would have had her future income spread out over the remaining years of her active working life. Since the dollar will not have the same value in the future as it does now, we need to use advanced calculations in order to create a comparable dollar value for each of the estimated ten years that Mrs. Kim would have had left to work. The Caldwell case failed to make any of these calculations, which resulted in the jury coming up with an obscenely high figure to award the plaintiff. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, who analyzed the details listed above and then proceeded to deem the previously awarded compensatory damages excessive. The case was ultimately remanded for a retrial of those damages. We plan to calculate Mrs. Kim’s estimated future income as closely and carefully as possible in order to come up with a reasonable amount in order to put this matter to rest as quickly as possible and avoid a lengthy and expensive trial. Mrs. Kim came up with a settlement offer of $500,000, which we consider a little high. After using her past gross income to predict her future gross income, then discounting it to show net income and present value, we projected a fair settlement offer of around $465,000. Even though her offer is about $35,000 higher that our projection, we feel that it is close enough to constitute a reasonable offer. Baron could try its hand in court, and it may very well lead to paying less damages. However, it could also turn devastatingly costly. Mrs. Kim was injured and then dragged through the store in front of an estimated twenty-five customers. She could seek come other form of damages against Baron, citing pain and suffering or loss of reputation because of the embarrassment the incident caused her. We feel that it would be wise to accept the settlement offer, and, in Mrs. Kim’s words, “resolve this matter amicably.”
 * 5.**

RECOMMENDATION

After reviewing the case at hand we have identified a few management issues that should be resolved as well as a few changes in the stores policies to prevent another similar situation to occur in the future. Some of the management issues we observed were the absence of a manager with full authority to handle the situation, poor employee training and no formal procedure to question a customer of stealing. These issues should be fixed immediately; we provided the following recommendations to help the management team at Baron Art Mart Inc. to develop new store policies. Remember the following are recommendations, they are not forced regulations for the store to follow but it is highly recommended to take them into consideration. We recommend that a manager should always be present at the store or give a supervising employee some managerial rights if a manager is unable to be present during the store hours. Having someone with authority present at all times helps the store run smoothly, issues involving managerial decisions would be taken care of immediately and it eliminates the need to reach a manager that is offsite. Another recommendation is to hire a security personnel/greeter and have him and/or her patrol the entry and exit areas of the store. This would also provide friendlier human interaction between the customers and employee’s as customers come in and out of the store. Another form of security is to install security cameras throughout the store. It is a more affordable and effective technique in the long run. There is also the option of having sensors installed on high priced merchandise, this is effective for the more costly goods but leaves the cheaper items at the same vulnerable state. Instituting any of these security recommendations will make the store less vulnerable to thefts and other criminal activities. One other recommendation is to provide better training for there employees. Employees should be thoroughly trained in security, loss prevention techniques and handling customers. Exercising different theft scenarios with employees will promote for a better understanding on how to deal with customers for future events. Training should be held on a yearly basis or semi-annual, depending on the stores budget. Having well trained employees will prevent similar situations like the Mrs. Kim vs. Baron Art Mart Inc. case and at the same time evade another lawsuit against the store. We encourage that the manager speak to the employees and get suggestions for any store improvement they feel is necessary. Other than recommendations we suggest that new and/or store policies be updated. The following should be added as new store policies; no employee shall ever use foul language when speaking to a customer or in the presence of a customer. Customers shall not be touched at anytime unless of medical emergencies, if so contact the working manager as well as 9-1-1. A manager must always be present during store hours. NO employee should confront a customer that is stealing, report immediately to the Loss prevention personnel with the proper authority or the manager in charge. These policies should be enacted immediately and explained to all current employees. It is suggested that store policies be revised annually and changed to adjust to modern times. Following these simple recommendations and new store policies should be an effective way to avoid any future scenarios involving petty theft. If there are any questions or suggestions we are available for immediate contact through our email system.

Strategic Considerations

Baron Art Mart Inc. must change it’s companies plan in order to improve it’s workers and at the same time keep it’s strong customer relationship with the community. In order to perform this it must re evaluate the vision the company holds. Baron Art Mart Inc. should be known as a friendly and welcoming store. After the previous events occurring with Mrs. Kim, the company lost some of the value once seen by the community. The issue here is that Baron Art Mart Inc. should never have to falsely accuse or touch a customer. To fix the issue and regain its once great status Baron Art Mart Inc. should begin by implementing a greeter at the front of the entry and exit way that would welcome customers as they walk in and leave the store. This strategic plan is advised because it not only gives customers an extra sense of welcoming but it provides the store with extra security. The greeter’s role within the organization is to be present during store hours at the entry section of the store but also throughout different locations when needed. This employee would have the proper training needed to understand what is asked of him/her and be responsible for multiple tasks.

The greeter’s goal is to make sure every customer is having a pleasant shopping experience. The second purpose is to keep thefts low to a minimum, when thefts are at a high rate the greeter is not performing well and an evaluation of that employee will be executed. The greeter is the employ that should not be distracted by sales or other activities around the store, they should be able to focus on their assignment and meet the standards placed in front of them. All employees should go thru training to teach them how to focus on their tasks and improve their ability to handle tough situations.

Management should think of the store’s future and learn from this previous past mistake. This new form of security is a way to close the flaw the store had and be able to react better if it were to happen again. Keeping the future in mind, the management team should work on installing this new form of security recommended for the store. The store manager should also emphasize to all employees that to better improve the store’s operations and customer service, they should evaluate how they currently perform and find ways to improve themselves. One way to help the employees prepare themselves for future challenges is by having management introduce scenarios to the employees and have them work it out as a team, this exercise is a great way to make employees feel comfortable and prepared for future events that will occur in the store.

This new idea introduced to Baron Art Mart Inc. is a great way to try out something new and exciting for the store. As times change, people change, attitudes change, and the way customers shop changes over time. Experimenting with the idea of having a greeter is a way to try out a new concept of security for Baron Art Mart. Inc. Other retail stores are currently using this concept and it has been working out great thus far. This new approach should be evaluated not only by the store’s manager but also by the employees working. Having employees give their input will definitely help the store figure out the best strategy to use for the future. The idea here is to be optimistic and consider new ideas to better improve the store so that scenarios like the incident with Mrs. Kim will not happen again.

Having a greeter at the front of the store does not insure that the company will see a decline in thefts. Therefore the following questions arise “ would having a greeter intimidate thief’s?” “ How will this affect the atmosphere of the store?” “ Will customers feel comfortable?” Having these questions in mind, the store manager should first think of what the outcome would be. The second motion is to have a trial with a greeter to see how customers react and analyze how to improve the stores strategy. It is recommended to conduct a one-moth test with a new employee as a greeter to see how things work out. If at the end of the month everything goes well then the store’s strategy worked out according to plan, if not a new strategy should be considered.

Considering a new strategy for Baron Art Mart Inc. Is a great way to revamp the store and help the store improve but at the same time keep up with the changing business environment. Hiring a new employee to take on the position of a greeter is a great new idea that will prevent future thefts, and help settle any customer related situations. The Management team should be able to visualize the new concept for the store as well as being able to consider ways to improve the new strategy so that they can be more efficient with future store problems.