Post by rreiter on Feb 25, 2016 23:41:41 GMT
• What assumptions are present in this scenario?
• How would you respond?
• What would you do?
• What questions did you ask yourself in coming to your conclusion?
What assumptions are present in this scenario?
Karen made the assumption that Steve was not only qualified to perform the duties of the job, but that he was also of the same mindset about ethical practices in the workplace. She assumed that he would adhere to the company's policy about use of the company truck, company equipment, the company gas card, and the hours that Steve was expected to work. Karen laid those out in the interview.
Steve made the assumption that his own personal emergencies would excuse him from some of the transgressions he committed. He assumed that, if he could explain the reason behind some of these issues, then he could not really be held at fault. He assumed that the hours of the job did not matter if he could still get the job done after being late. He also assumed that being 10-15 minutes late to the job was "not really late".
How would you respond?
If I were Karen, I probably would have had a dialogue about some of the issues he stated, particularly on the issue of his child being sick and getting out of work early on Wednesdays. In my own experience, I have made arrangements with employees who need to have somewhat alternate schedules due to the needs or issues with their children. The misuse of company property and the gas card, though, would not really be open to discussion for me. I think those misuses are pretty clear.
What would you do?
In his performance review, Karen had a long list of wrongdoings. If I were in that scenario, I don't think I would have let it get to the point where there are 5-6 different disciplinary issues. I think a diligent manager would find out the reasons behind these transgressions as soon as they happen so that the manager can either a) work out a solution that would allow the individual to keep his job but still get the job done or b)reiterate company policy and provide sufficient clarification or, if necessary, warning about these actions.
I can be flexible (to a point) about work hours, provided there is a good reason for altering schedules. However, there were certain transgressions that went against what was detailed in the interview and I am assuming in the company's orientation (misuse of equipment, gas card, etc), and for those, I am less forgiving. Since his actions got to that point, Steve probably should be terminated.
What questions did you ask yourself in coming to your conclusion?
The first question I asked myself was, what would I have done if I were in Steve's shoes. I can understand when sick family members or special circumstances around family would cause me to prioritize family over job. But Steve was pretty defenisive and not very apologetic.
The second question I asked myself was what was Steve thinking and if he understood the difference between right and wrong in each of those scenarios that he laid out.
The third question I had was, how did Karen let it get to that point? Why didn't she intervene earlier? I felt that if she had intervened earlier, Steve, with a better understanding of adherence to policy, would have kept his job.
• How would you respond?
• What would you do?
• What questions did you ask yourself in coming to your conclusion?
What assumptions are present in this scenario?
Karen made the assumption that Steve was not only qualified to perform the duties of the job, but that he was also of the same mindset about ethical practices in the workplace. She assumed that he would adhere to the company's policy about use of the company truck, company equipment, the company gas card, and the hours that Steve was expected to work. Karen laid those out in the interview.
Steve made the assumption that his own personal emergencies would excuse him from some of the transgressions he committed. He assumed that, if he could explain the reason behind some of these issues, then he could not really be held at fault. He assumed that the hours of the job did not matter if he could still get the job done after being late. He also assumed that being 10-15 minutes late to the job was "not really late".
How would you respond?
If I were Karen, I probably would have had a dialogue about some of the issues he stated, particularly on the issue of his child being sick and getting out of work early on Wednesdays. In my own experience, I have made arrangements with employees who need to have somewhat alternate schedules due to the needs or issues with their children. The misuse of company property and the gas card, though, would not really be open to discussion for me. I think those misuses are pretty clear.
What would you do?
In his performance review, Karen had a long list of wrongdoings. If I were in that scenario, I don't think I would have let it get to the point where there are 5-6 different disciplinary issues. I think a diligent manager would find out the reasons behind these transgressions as soon as they happen so that the manager can either a) work out a solution that would allow the individual to keep his job but still get the job done or b)reiterate company policy and provide sufficient clarification or, if necessary, warning about these actions.
I can be flexible (to a point) about work hours, provided there is a good reason for altering schedules. However, there were certain transgressions that went against what was detailed in the interview and I am assuming in the company's orientation (misuse of equipment, gas card, etc), and for those, I am less forgiving. Since his actions got to that point, Steve probably should be terminated.
What questions did you ask yourself in coming to your conclusion?
The first question I asked myself was, what would I have done if I were in Steve's shoes. I can understand when sick family members or special circumstances around family would cause me to prioritize family over job. But Steve was pretty defenisive and not very apologetic.
The second question I asked myself was what was Steve thinking and if he understood the difference between right and wrong in each of those scenarios that he laid out.
The third question I had was, how did Karen let it get to that point? Why didn't she intervene earlier? I felt that if she had intervened earlier, Steve, with a better understanding of adherence to policy, would have kept his job.