Abstract
The present case study helps understand the nature and the significance of the conflict management process. Three positions were discussed such as George Mann’s, Sally Carter’s, and Jane Arnold’s. In Manns’ place, I would present the matter as rather a stand-alone occurrence and build an argument around interpersonal and organizational trust. As Sally Carter, I would insist on maintaining discipline at all times and outlining the negative effects of Mann’s managerial decision. As Jane Arnold, I would refrain from punitive measures on the worker, instead of making it a managerial issue. Friendly reminders and stricter punch-ins and outs are what I suggest for organizational changes.
George Mann’s Position
If was in Mann’s position, it would try to present the matter as rather a stand-alone occurrence and build an argument around interpersonal and organizational trust. If the employee previously had not been noticed for such behavior, the sanctions applied to him without warning would seem unethical. In addition, such a harsh reaction from the human resources department would undermine the desire of the employee to work for that company. According to Ugwu, Onyishi, and Rodríguez-Sánchez, (2014), trust is an essential attribute of job commitment. Having faced a difficult situation, an employee asked Mann for help. Mann provided such help by allowing to have an undocumented leave. Apart from minor negative consequences that the absence may have caused, a long-term positive effect of the decision may be underlined. As such, by providing help, Mann created a bond between himself and an employee being able to ask the employee for a similar service. By increasing trust and leading by example, Mann showed a good example of a leader who is responsive to the issues of his subordinates. The decision made by him should not in any circumstances become detrimental to the latter, as the weight of the choice should be placed on a manager.
By engaging an employee in an activity that is almost equally beneficial to the company, Mann partially mitigated the negative effects of the worker’s absence. Also, taking into account the fact that the decision was a pronounced attempt to build a trusting relationship, the manager fulfilled his duty if not by the book then by human courtesy. The matter that urged the employee to leave could have been serious enough and induce deep psychological trauma. If Mann did not respond with compassion and generosity, the employee could have been performing poorly for a longer period of time after the incident.
Sally Carter’s Position
To my opinion, Sally Carter’s position should be based on maintaining discipline at all times and outlining the negative effects of Mann’s managerial decision. According to Thaief, Baharuddin, and Idrus (2015), discipline positively correlates with employees’ work effectiveness. Therefore, a worker who cannot maintain discipline can potentially destabilize the company by his or her underperformance. Since the worker was not doing his job, he should not be receiving payment for it.
As for Mann’s decision to release the worker from their duties without clocking out, it is also disciplinary misconduct. Even though the employee was tasked with a company errand, this was not his primary reason for being absent. Despite the alleged desire of the manager to help his employee, this act of assistance was commissioned at the expense of the company. As the maintenance department is often needed to swiftly locate and eliminate technical difficulties of the organization, an absence of a worker endangered the company. The least possible fine for such misconduct is not paying for absence hours and informing both the manager and employee of the unacceptability of such behavior within the company.
Jane Arnold’s Position
Assuming her position, I would refrain from punitive measures on the worker, instead of making it a managerial issue. However, overemphasis on the problem should not be the case here. I would be inclined to agree with Mann on the fact that it was a stand-alone occurrence and not a practice. Therefore, he as an authority has to bear minimal punishment for his misconduct. The accurate punitive measure would be a practice review.
Liebler and McConnell (2016) advise emphasizing motivational practices. I would consider focusing on motivating Mann to be more concerned about the larger scale of this event. Having him realize that the company may have experienced serious difficulties without one of its crucial employees is essential for his managerial practice. As for the employee, to my opinion, it would be wise to consider compensating him or her for the time he or she spends purchasing equipment for the company in accordance with the task given to him or her by the supervisor. As for the time he was absent, the company should not issue payment for that. In addition, the worker should receive a friendly reminder of the company’s policy of clock-ins and outs.
Organizational Changes
In response to such an occurrence, I would not consider any radical changes. I would treat it as a standalone mistake of a certain manager, who needs guidance on the matter. However, for precaution’s sake, a certain organizational measure should be introduced. Closer surveillance for clock-ins and outs by HR would allow the company to eliminate possible personal bias among managers. In addition, all managers should be aware of the company’s stance on similar matters as well as the consequences of their decisions for the company.
References
Liebler, J., & McConnell, C. (2016). Management principles for health professionals (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Thaief, I., Baharuddin, A., & Idrus, M. S. I. (2015). Effect of training, compensation and work discipline against employee job performance. Review of European studies, 7(11), 23-33.
Ugwu, F. O., Onyishi, I. E., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M. (2014). Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 43(3), 377-400.