Donald Rubendall should adopt a liberal approach for hiring Ms. Gibson as his Human Resource Generalist to be presented to the company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The approach would be objective and tactical in ensuring continued organizational attributes entailing flexibility and openness. In essence, Ms. Gibson is worth hiring for a senior role, despite her preference for bringing a Chihuahua to work. Sufficient research highlights increased productivity and creativity among employees who attend to their pets during breaks (Truett, 2013). This is to acknowledge the successful implementation of social policies in a pet-friendly workplace. The identified candidate should be allowed to bring her pet to the workplace under specific conditions. Consequently, Donald Rubendall should be strategic in implementing socially progressive policies that benefit all stakeholders distinctly and equitably.
The new Assistant Manager should still consider the recruitment strategy despite opposition from ten percent of the employees. Some workers may get frightened by animals, including dogs and cats. The fear and anxiety resulting from pets being around the workplace would reduce the productivity rate among affected individuals (Linacre, 2016). This is an authentic concern worthy of consideration before Ms. Gibson can be recruited to the firm. However, the issue should be practically addressed in policy-making only when most employees raise the issue. However, the apprehensions of an insignificant number of workers would be considered using a different framework. For instance, the pet-friendly policy could restrict Ms. Gibson’s Chihuahua from coming to offices and workstations (Truett, 2013). The approach would be helpful in ensuring cohesive integration among employees.
Most importantly, Donald Rubendall should enact a comprehensive pet-friendly workplace policy for the organization. Vital considerations regarding the productivity and security of all stakeholders should be paramount in the regulation. The new plan should provide sufficient guidelines which restrict both pets and their owners from interfering with the professional and personal surroundings of other workers (Linacre, 2016). This approach is instrumental in ensuring relevance and acceptance during the practical implementation of the regulation. For instance, personal conflicts arising from intrusive pets should be resolved tactically and liberally to foster continued employee coherence and teamwork (Barker et al., 2012). All employees with pets in the workplace should be cautious, considerate, and responsive to support organizational goals of flexibility and openness.
Moreover, anonymous surveys constitute the best management tool for determining the effectiveness of organizational policies. In this case, Donald Rubendall should consider the views, opinions, and comments of colleagues affected directly by the pet-friendly workplace policy (Truett, 2013). For instance, an anonymous survey would be distributed to employees at different working positions for tactical evaluation of responses. Notably, the Assistant Manager should focus on obtaining many survey replies to ensure consistency and accuracy in policy formulation regarding pets in the workplace (Linacre, 2016). Negative answers from replied surveys require tactical evaluation to determine the main information pattern that communicates individual sentiments. Most decisively, the policy should be conceptually outlined to gauge employee preferences on the pet topic within the workplace.
In conclusion, the CEO can reject the new social policy by Donald Rubendall. Nevertheless, several reasonable compromises could be adopted to convince him of the regulation’s benefits. Improved productivity and enhanced creativity among employees imply increased profitability, and senior officials can implement investment goals due to optimized profits. In addition, the CEO could be informed of the cohesion and integration of organizational attributes that enhance stakeholder value among management officials, employees, investors, and clients. These compromises are useful in illustrating the potential benefits of allowing workers to carry their pets to the workplace as required by Ms. Gibson.
References
Barker, R. T., Knisely, J. S., Barker, S. B., Cobb, R. K., & Schubert, C. M. (2012). Preliminary investigation of employee’s dog presence on stress and organizational perceptions. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 5(1), 15-30. Web.
Linacre, S. (2016). Pets in the workplace. Human Resource Management International Digest, 24(4), 17-19. Web.
Truett, R. (2013). Some stores see being pet-friendly as a plus. Automotive News. Web.