The Argument I would be advancing if I were in George Mann’s position
The current disagreement presents an imperative point in the organization when it comes to addressing or avoiding future related conflicts to guarantee a smooth running of its activities. Firstly, the employee is a victim of decisions and actions, which were beyond his control. Although he had asked for permission from the immediate supervisor, the decision of not punching out the timecard was entirely founded on the fact that the employee was advised not to do so. Based on the organization’s policy, it is wrong to undertake personal business at the expense of the company (Barsky, 2014). However, the organization is not clear on the rules that should be followed in the event that a person undertakes organizational business while on his or her personal business (Brown et al., 2011). This lack of clarity attracted the advice of not punching the timecard. The supervisor was of the opinion that since he was to undertake some activities for the organization during his time off, he ought to have been paid. Another important issue that arises from this case is the authority bestowed on the supervisor and its relevance in making decisions regarding the punishment of an employee for his or her actions that have been permitted by the junior superintendent. In this case, a conflict of authority is evident. It has left the supervisor who gave the permission to the employee to have a time off from work feeling disregarded. Punishing the employee will amount to belittling the authority of the junior supervisors. Consequently, it is for the benefit of the organization and the motivation of junior supervisors to vacate the punishment to ensure that the authority of all individuals in the lower positions has a meaning to the employees and the organization.
The Argument I would advance if I were in Sally Carter’s Position
The supervisor of human resources and payroll should ensure that employees are paid for the value that they give to the organization based on the policy that is in place. The policy document provides rules and guidelines of the conduct and activities of employees as well as on the management of the organization. Without such rules, it is impossible for this organization to achieve its goals. Further, in the absence of the rules and policy guidelines, it is impracticable to manage the employees, a role which falls under the department of the human resource (Swayne, Duncan, & Ginter, 2012). Thus, in this case, the policy guideline is very important in determining the action that an employee should take when he or she is off duty for personal reasons. It is a requirement to punch out the timecard. The process ensures that the individual is not paid for work not done. Such actions are also essential for the payroll since they guarantee accountability for all people (Barsky, 2014). The human resource supervisor oversees the implementation of such policy guidelines. Based on the current case, the rules have been applied. Another important issue is that ignorance is not a defense for wrongdoing. In this case, the maintenance supervisor erred in allowing the employee to have time off and/or excusing him from punching out the timecard following the company’s policy guidelines. Consequently, the organization must take its rightful authority and crack the whip on the deliberate violation of policies. This procedure guarantees an important turning point of ensuring that the policy is not just a document without meaning and authority (Need, 2006). Each employee must act as stipulated by the guiding principles. Any violations attract punishment or sanctions.
My Decision in the Position of the CEO, Jane Arnold
Firstly, in the position of the CEO, it is crucial to understand the overt problem that is currently pitting the maintenance supervisor and the employee against the human resource and payroll superintendent (Liebler & McConnell, 2011). In this case, the overt problem is the lack of punching time out when employees are off duty for personal business. Another problem is evident in the authority of various supervisors in the organization. In addition, the question of who is liable for the mistake or current problem is also evident.
The second step in the process of solving this conflict involves understanding the hidden agenda if any (Liebler & McConnell, 2011). One of the most apparent hidden agendas may relate to power struggles between different supervisors in the organization. Currently, none of the conflicting parties is willing to back down. The arrival of this issue at the CEO’s desk is an indication of deeper underlying problems on the authority of different supervisors.
From the above analysis, the complexity of the organizational structure is one of the immediate possible sources of conflict (Liebler & McConnell, 2011). An overlap of roles and authority between the supervisor of the maintenance department and the supervisor in charge of human resources and payroll is evident. While the human resource and payroll supervisor is senior to the maintenance supervisor, the latter party also has authority over the employees in his department. Hence, in the given case, he did not violate any rule in permitting the employee to have some time off. In addition, since the employee was to undertake the business for the organization during his time off, he was entailed to pay, even if it was to be done partially.
A decision to punish the employee will have far-reaching consequences on the low-ranking supervisors, including employees, who are supposed to take orders from such supervisors. Further, while the policy guideline demands non-payment for such scenarios, the organization has not taken the correct measures of ensuring a clear division of authority. In addition, employees and supervisors have not been made aware of the requirements of the policy. Consequently, the best decision is to vacate the punishment applied to the employee (Swayne et al., 2012). In the proceeding period after the decision, the organization must undertake training for all employees and supervisors on the various requirements of the policy. Another important step will involve revising the policy to ensure clear guidelines on the division of authority.
Steps, Policy Changes, Guidelines, and Payroll Requirements
Firstly, the process of solving the current problem will focus on a limitation strategy. According to Liebler and McConnell (2011), the limitation approach emphasizes privatizing a problem and solving it within the organization without bringing clients or customers into the issue. The organization will address the problem internally without affecting the services that it provides. The second step will involve highlighting policy areas within which the current problem manifests itself (Liebler & McConnell, 2011). Currently, conflict of authority is evident and hence the need to establish clear guidelines that will guarantee the separation of power in the organization. This process will be concentrated on the top management to ensure that the necessary policy changes are made. In addition, changes are required to stipulate clear guidelines on the payroll on when and/or what constitutes activities and roles that the organization should compensate its employees for. Such a process will allow the organization to determine what constitutes a time off, which should not be compensated or otherwise.
Once these guidelines are clear, the next step will be the implementation of such policies. This activity will be accomplished by ensuring that employees in all ranks of the organization are trained and familiarized with the policies to avoid future conflicts. Most importantly, those in charge of implementing such policies in their respective departments such as managers and supervisors will receive collaborative training to eliminate any conflicts and/or overlapping of authority (Barsky, 2014). Such measures will ensure that the organization runs smoothly and that problems, which arise from a conflict of interest or power struggles are addressed accordingly without affecting the morale of the employees or the services that the organization renders.
The above conflict represents a typical case that commonly occurs in organizations with complex organizational structures. Such a situation arises from a conflict of authority between different managers or supervisors. The clashes can only be addressed through policy changes that stipulate a clear division of authority between managers. Further, the solution must be provided within a limited strategy, which will minimize the occurrence of such disagreements in the future. After the necessary changes, it is important for the employees to be trained accordingly to be aware of the various policies that guide their mandate in the organization.
References
Barsky, A. (2014). Conflict resolution for the helping professions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Brown, J., Lewis, L., Ellis, K., Stewart, M., Freeman, T. R., & Kasperski, M. J. (2011). Conflict on interprofessional primary health care teams–can it be resolved? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25(1), 4-10.
Liebler, J. G., & McConnell, C. R. (2011). Management principles for health professionals. New York, NY: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Need, W. (2006). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage. New York, NY: Sage.
Swayne, L., Duncan, W., & Ginter, P. (2012). Strategic management of health care organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.