The first issues led to another issue of the HRM policy goal. According to Brunetto, Wharton and Shacklock (2011), since the employees did not have much involvement of into the decision making process, they would not have high commitment to the organization goals. This is because the employees do not understand what is the goal the organization wanted to achieve, and if the organizational goal is clarified, they also want to know whether the decision is matched with their personal objectives. From the lacking of acknowledgement and understanding, staffs would somehow do it as the duties they are paid to operate for or worst as they would deny participating in the procedure; hence, the organization’s objective would be under-qualified or even fail to achieve. In the employees’ side, the situation might raise the conflict between the organization and employees, or between employees who were interested in the adjustment and who were not. According to Rilkoff (2012), Canterbury Hospital did not provide selection and training process or establish job design which support to employees to get used to the working procedures as well as new adjustments, in this case is the generating of new committee. Therefore, most of the employees did not know what they were going to do when the hospital selected people to be in the committee. Moreover, many people who were working in the hospital have skills only in medical fields; thus, it is difficult and takes time for people to acknowledge the new policies and ways to implement the policies. This would lead to the lacking of flexibility of the staffs as they were asked to perform tasks without having interests, discussions or alternatives. Consequently, the inflexible task allocation, heavy workload and employees’ un-skillfulness would decline the hospital and committee’s productivity as well as lower service quality. According to