Discipline and morale are closely related. Morale is how a person feels; discipline is how a person acts. The purpose of discipline is to promote desired behavior. This may be done by encouraging acceptable behavior or punishing unacceptable behavior. An agency’s policy and procedure manual is the foundation on which most discipline must be based. Discipline is a fundamental management right.
The 10/80/10 principle divides the workforce into three categories: 10 percent who are high achievers, 80 percent who are average achievers and 10 percent who are unmotivated troublemakers and cause 90 percent of management’s problems. A problem employee exhibits abnormal behavior to the extent that the behavior is detrimental to organizational needs and goals as well as the needs and goals of other department personnel. In addition to problem employees, law enforcement managers must also be able to deal with people who, although not technically “problem” employees, are extremely difficult to work with. These include yes people, passives, avoiders, pessimists, complainers, know-it-alls, exploders, bullies and snipers. To deal with problem people, get their attention, identify the problem behavior, point out the consequences, ask questions, listen and explain expectations. Avoid defensiveness.
A primary rule of effective discipline is that it should be carried out as close to the time of the violation as possible. Progressive discipline uses disciplinary steps based on the severity of the offense. The steps are usually (1) oral reprimand, (2) written reprimand, (3) suspension/demotion and (4) discharge. The offense and offender, how the offense was committed and the offender’s attitude and past performance are important considerations in assigning penalties.
Discipline, either positive or negative, depends on the use of consequences. The balance of consequences analysis considers behavior in terms of what positive and negative results the behavior produces and then focuses on those results. Personal, immediate and certain (PIC) consequences are stronger than organizational, delayed or uncertain (ODU) consequences. Managers should change the balance of consequences so that employees are rewarded for desired behavior and punished for undesired behavior—not vice versa.
The PRICE Method consists of five steps: (1) pinpoint, (2) record, (3) involve, (4) coach and (5) evaluate. Both praise and reprimands can be effectively accomplished in one minute. An effective manager usually gives four times more praise than blame. Managers can also give strokes. These strokes might be positive, negative, absent, crooked or plastic. The focus should be on positive strokes.
Discussion Questions
1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions?
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum takes into account much of what a police officer may need to do. Do you think there is anything that may have been left out? Would you change any aspect of the continuum?
Human error should result in dismissal when the person foolishly does something he/she knows that he shouldn't be doing and accidently cause someone injuries, great bodily harm or death. An example is a police officer driving recklessly for no reason and he crashes into another vehicle. A supervisor should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions when he/she give a subordinate an order which leads to the death of that person or another person. An example is an officer directly traffic from where he considers a safe spot and his Sgt gives him a direct order to move into the middle of the street to direct traffic and he gets hit and kill by a passing vehicle. The use of force continuum is good the way it is. It starts from talk to touch, etc, etc, to shoot. It takes a lot for it to get to that point. There are a lot of steps an officer has to take before he actually has to get to the point of tasering or shooting someone; depending on the situation. I don't thing it should be changed at this moment. Now, if something better should come along that that benefit the officers and their department as well the offenders, then the change would be welcomed.
Human error should result in dismissal when such an error could have been avoided.When lives are at risk or loss of life occurs there should not be any question as to whether the person/persons responsible be relieved of their duties.When there is permanent physical or emotional damages are also inflicted the person responsible should be immediately discharged. It this question pertains to law enforcement, then i most definately think that if an officer involved in such an incident then that officer should be dismissed from the police force. The lack of trust that civilians have for law enforcement is historical.In the future i think it is important that trust be restored between the police and cititzens. When an incident like that occors it further puts law enforcement at odds with the citizens that they serve. (2)I think supervisors should not be held criminally or civilly liable for their subordinates actions if there is evidence that the supervisor followed policies and procedures when the subordinate was being trained for that job.If an investigation proved that the subordinate was not properly trained to perform their job in a non-erroneous way then the supervisor should be held criminally and civilly liable.(3)I think The Circular Use of Force Continum should remain in tact and i don't think i would add anything to it. I compared it to the Linear Use of Force Continum and i thik it was a big upgrade when departments started using the Circular Use of Force Continum instead of the Linear. The Circualr added a very important factor which was COMMUNICATION which was noticeably absent from the Linear Continum. In place of communication, the Linear had "verbal direction" which tells me that there would be a one-way dialogue carried out by the officer. The Circular Continuim's addition of the communication factor makes it more reliable and gives the interaction between an officer and a suspect/perpetrator a chance to resolve a confrontational issues before it escalates into a situaion which would result in a loss of life. A perfect example of this would be Carole's stroking of a suspect's head in a non-verbal communicative way to calm the suspect before an arrest was made. :-)
I answered the 2nd part of the question incorrectly. I don’t believe that the supervisor should be held criminally or civilly for his/her subordinates actions. If a subordinate took it upon him self to do something stupid that he knows or should have known that was wrong, than that person should be held accountable for his or her actions. The supervisors are there for guidance not to hold each person hands as if they are children and make sure they do right. It’s not fair to that supervisor to be punished for his subordinates lack of good judgment.
1. Well first of all we have to asses the severity of the error whether it was something minor or major, then we have to look at the state of mind (mens rea) of the individual at the time of the error/incident. I believe that an error done intentionally at a high severity level meaning causing damages physically, psychologically or structurally for that matter is grounds for dismissal.
2.I believe that no one should be responsible for somebody else’s mistakes, the only time I would agree that a supervisor should be held liable in part for the actions of a subordinate is when the act was committed in the presence of the supervisor and he or she could have prevented it. What would a prudent person do in the position of the supervisor?
3. I would not change any aspect of the model. The “use of force continuum” (model) is to accurately guide a reasonable response for virtually any situation. Overreaction may not only be unconstitutional, it may also be ineffective. Under reaction may allow harm to come to the officer or others. In my opinion, it is important that the use of force be thought of as a continuous stream of decisions and actions, appropriate in relation to the subject’s actions.
Alejandro I agree with you as far as the supervisor should be held accountable if the act was done in his or her presence and did not do anything about it. If a supervisor gives someone an order to do something and something goes bad because of it, then that supervisor is liable. “Direct order!” remember those words. And if a person is not in a right state of mind and does something in a job that ends up hurting himself or someone else, then that person should still be dismissed from the job. That person should not be at the job because he might be incompetent.
Good morning Alejandro, if the supervisor in question did not follow department policies and procedures in the training process of the subordinate to ensure the safety of persons they come in contact with, don't you think the supervisor should be held both criminally and civilly liable? How else would the subordinate know without the proper training from the supervisor especially if they had no prior knowledge?
Ericka Thank you!! You are soooo right. I don't think Alejandro see it that way. If a supervisor followed proper procedures then he will be ok but he didn't and gaves an order that causes a problem then that supervisor should be held liable.
Carole i guess we are on the same page then. When a supervisor provides a subordinate extensive, proper training that follows departmental policies and procedures it is not only for their benefit but for the safety and protection for the citizens they serve. When the supervisor fails to properly train and instruct their subordinate then they should bear some of the responsibility for their incompetence also. As subordinates how else would we know?
Key word knowingly, if the supervisor is able to predict/anticipate the action whether the subordinate was trained or not he/she should be held liable at some level.
Alejandro OK if you put it that way.. i can understand what you are saying. But, even if the person did the act in error, that person's work history should be evaluated. maybe that person is always making the same mistakes. if a person keeps making mistakes at a job, the person might not have been trained properly or the job is not for that person.
I totally agree with you Carole, if a subordinate was trained properly i think their ability to perform their tasks for that job position, the probability for a criminal or civil liability should be at a minimun if not non-existent. If a subordinate had pre-existing expertise, knowledge and training in that particular field then i really don't think that they would have applied for a subordinate position rather they would have applied for a supervisory position where they would be the one providing the training.
Human error should only result in dismissal if the employee performs improper conduct. Some of factors are abusing sick-leave, sexual harassment, insubordination and using threat of violence at a place of work. Abusing sick-leave is when a healthy employee purposely calls in sick to avoid attending work. This act alone can affect certain businesses that require a full staff in order to operate efficiently. For instance, a restaurant such as P.F. Chang needs a maximum of 15 servers and 4 bartenders present on the weekend; which is the busiest days the for the bistro. If a server is ill and does not call in a sick ahead of time before his shift begins, it will be difficult to find a substitution to cover that server’s shift within little time. Thus, abusing this feature would be if a server continuously doesn’t show up for work and calls in sick hours after his shift was suppose to be worked. This can devastate the business because with little time to a seek replacement, the 14 remaining servers who attended their shift, must work harder by picking up extra tables. Each server is assigned a set number of tables to operate in order to maximize great service to their guest. If they work extra tables, this will decrease their performance towards their guest. As a result, a load of guests will complain to the manager about the poor service they received. This will disturb the business to gain profits because the guest will be given compensation towards their bill; and the business will lose money. Moreover, the act of sexual harassment involves a victim and a perpetrator; where the perpetrator unseemly touches the victim inappropriately. This action can lead to stalking and rape. Therefore, it is imperative that the manager must acknowledge such existence and terminate the executor. The exploitation of insubordination is common at a work facility. This occurs when employers become disobedient towards their executive in regards to following commands. It is nearly impossible to implement a successful business if your staff is rebellious. To overcome this obstacle, a good manager must dismiss the noncontributing workers in order to run the business productively. After everything else, the use of threatening violence at work place is unacceptable. A skilled manager must eliminate employers with such aggression to prevent causalities.
A supervisor should not be responsible for their subordinates civilly if he gave proper training to their staff. In contrast, a supervisor should be criminally responsible for their subordinate’s acts, only if the supervisor acknowledge a crime was committed and he does nothing about it.
The Circular Use of Force Continuum guidelines are fine. I wouldn’t alter it because police officers are equipped with efficient weapons and they have immense authority.
1. Human error varies through through different levels, such as petty error to severe error. To result in dismissal, it depends on the discretion of the person who is in charge or supervising; it also depends on the severity of the error. It could be punishable verbally, by writing, meeting, and even dismissal. For instance, some severe human errors that could result in dismissal is tardiness and absence(loss of morale), theft, unsubordination, fighting, disrespect, etc.; its all the factors that go against ethical and moral behavior.
2. Not totally in agreement with supervisors being held criminally and civilly for their subordinates actions. They do have the responsibility to see their subordinates are performing the job adequately and oversee their behavior, locations, etc. But when subordinates committ illegal actions or actions that are not acceptable to the agancy's rules, supervisors should not be held responsible. But like Alejando said, supervisors should be held responsible if they knew about it and did not report it or could have prevented.
3. In response to the Continuum, I would not change any aspect of the uses of forces depending on the situations police officers encounter. It is really common sense, low resistance is first used to uncooperating people who are given multiple warnings verbally; but if uncooperation persists, the officer can move up the Continuum to more physical resistance such as grabbing and escorting the uncooperting person out the premises after he was warned. Hence, if a person is using violent behavior and force that could hurt others, the officer can move to deadly force or other methods of the continuum to control the situation.
You made a good point on the 2nd question. my response was similar. Supervisors cant control people but if they witness the crime and do nothing about it, then they should be liable also.
Carole,
I don't agree with your response in regards to the second question. Supervisors are here to guide their staff, your right. But what happens when they witness their own employers stealing within the facility? This can affect a business dramatically because they would lose money. By not taking action makes you more accountable for the situation, it is like you're helping him steal.
Please answer the following questions and if needed, explain your answers fully. You are required to turn in the completed questions on December 12, 2009 at the beginning of the next class session (8am).
Thank you.
1. What is motivation?
2. What theories of motivation have been proposed by Maslow, Herzberg, Skinner,Vroom, and Morse / Lorsch?
3. Which kind of reinforcement is more effective?
4. When should reinforcement occur?
5. What are the most common external motivators?
6. Internal motivators include what?
7. What factors might be responsible for morale problems?
8. Who is most able to improve or damage individual and department morale?
9. How morale might be improved?
10. What should promotions be based on?
11. Should promotions be from outside or from within? Explain your answer
12. How do morale and discipline differ?
13. What is the main purpose of discipline?
14. What is the foundation for most disciplinary actions?
15. What is a fundamental management right?
16. What is the 10/80/10 principle?
17. How is a problem employee characterized?
18. What types of personalities might be likely to result in problems?
19. How can managers deal with problem people?
20. What is a primary rule for the timing of discipline?
21. What should be considered when assessing penalties?
22. What steps are usually involved in progressive discipline?
23. What is a balance of consequences analysis?
24. What consequences are most powerful?
25. How can managers use the balance of consequences?
26. What does the PRICE Method consists of?
27. How much time do effective praise and reprimands require?
28. What ratio of praise to blame is usually needed?
Question # 1 I don't think someone should be fired just for making a mistake BUT if it must be done, we have to take into consideration: how long the individual has been in this particular position, how much knowledge/training this person has, how many previous errors were commited by the same person and the severity of those errors, what steps were taken to prevent any future errors & correct those that had occurred(if any),was this individual given any type of warning -verbal/written...
Depending on the severity of the situation, I do believe a supervisor should be held responsible. Sometimes an individual is hired to perform a job that he/she may not be properly trained for or is not experienced enough--an accident could occur--. Even when most governmental jobs require an extensive background check, it has happened that the person has been hired before the entire screening process has been completed, in some cases the applicant has been highly recommended by someone from a higher position or for any other reason like: short on personnel, owe a "favor" or just personally known by a superior. Sexual predators have been hired, active drug addicts/alcoholics. How many pilots fly a plain while highly intoxicated? In that type of scenario, the supervisor should be fired on the spot and charged with a crime.
1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer. This is decided solely upon the policies and procedures that a department adheres to, also the ability of the supervisor to execute swift a severe. With that being said, whenever it is clear in black and white that an employee made a violation that’s has grounds for dismissal; and the error is NOT based on lack of departmental training or education the employee is definitely marked for dismissal.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates’ actions? Usually, no aside from scenarios whereas supervisors are held responsible for their subordinates possessing adequate training and they fail to do so. For example, you have an employee in the field or scope of duty who is properly trained and has the know-how of carrying out their duties or task should have to answer for their actions. Supervisors should not have to take the “hit” from outside entities for an employee that fits into the 10% that are the trouble makers based on the 10/80/1o. In the case of an employee who is well trained, the answer is no. in the case of an employee being under trained or whose skills are not up to par that falls on management the answer is “yes”.
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum takes into account much of what a police officer may need to do. Do you think there is anything that may have been left out? Would you change any aspect of the continuum? The topic of use of force is very a controversial topic. First, there is a huge disparity between what is covered under the use of force continuum and what officers often choose to do on their own. As if to say, what is the purpose of having one? When in the spur of the moment police and correctional officers react off impulse and not policy or in this case the “use of force” continuum. I would change some aspects of the continuum. There are some gray areas that need to shaded in. For example, you haves a 5’2 110lb female officer trying to subdue a 6’7 320lb subject who is resisting with violence. Based on this scenario, there is no way that the officer would be successful in bringing down the subject down if she adhered to the continuum. I would implement steps that will cover these issues allowing the officer to go beyond incapacitation and permit that officer to respond with deadly force.
Welcome to our Asynchronous Blog for DSC1006 Introduction to Homeland Security. You should respond to the questions and follow the instructions from our class meetings on Saturday.
Discipline and morale are closely related. Morale is how a person feels; discipline is how a person acts. The purpose of discipline is to promote desired behavior. This may be done by encouraging acceptable behavior or punishing unacceptable behavior. An agency’s policy and procedure manual is the foundation on which most discipline must be based. Discipline is a fundamental management right.
ReplyDeleteThe 10/80/10 principle divides the workforce into three categories: 10 percent who are high achievers, 80 percent who are average achievers and 10 percent who are unmotivated troublemakers and cause 90 percent of management’s problems. A problem employee exhibits abnormal behavior to the extent that the behavior is detrimental to organizational needs and goals as well as the needs and goals of other department personnel. In addition to problem employees, law enforcement managers must also be able to deal with people who, although not technically “problem” employees, are extremely difficult to work with. These include yes people, passives, avoiders, pessimists, complainers, know-it-alls, exploders, bullies and snipers. To deal with problem people, get their attention, identify the problem behavior, point out the consequences, ask questions, listen and explain expectations. Avoid defensiveness.
A primary rule of effective discipline is that it should be carried out as close to the time of the violation as possible. Progressive discipline uses disciplinary steps based on the severity of the offense. The steps are usually (1) oral reprimand, (2) written reprimand, (3) suspension/demotion and (4) discharge. The offense and offender, how the offense was committed and the offender’s attitude and past performance are important considerations in assigning penalties.
Discipline, either positive or negative, depends on the use of consequences. The balance of consequences analysis considers behavior in terms of what positive and negative results the behavior produces and then focuses on those results. Personal, immediate and certain (PIC) consequences are stronger than organizational, delayed or uncertain (ODU) consequences. Managers should change the balance of consequences so that employees are rewarded for desired behavior and punished for undesired behavior—not vice versa.
The PRICE Method consists of five steps: (1) pinpoint, (2) record, (3) involve, (4) coach and (5) evaluate. Both praise and reprimands can be effectively accomplished in one minute. An effective manager usually gives four times more praise than blame. Managers can also give strokes. These strokes might be positive, negative, absent, crooked or plastic. The focus should be on positive strokes.
Discussion Questions
1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions?
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum takes into account much of what a police officer may need to do. Do you think there is anything that may have been left out? Would you change any aspect of the continuum?
Human error should result in dismissal when the person foolishly does something he/she knows that he shouldn't be doing and accidently cause someone injuries, great bodily harm or death. An example is a police officer driving recklessly for no reason and he crashes into another vehicle.
ReplyDeleteA supervisor should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions when he/she give a subordinate an order which leads to the death of that person or another person. An example is an officer directly traffic from where he considers a safe spot and his Sgt gives him a direct order to move into the middle of the street to direct traffic and he gets hit and kill by a passing vehicle.
The use of force continuum is good the way it is. It starts from talk to touch, etc, etc, to shoot. It takes a lot for it to get to that point. There are a lot of steps an officer has to take before he actually has to get to the point of tasering or shooting someone; depending on the situation. I don't thing it should be changed at this moment. Now, if something better should come along that that benefit the officers and their department as well the offenders, then the change would be welcomed.
Human error should result in dismissal when such an error could have been avoided.When lives are at risk or loss of life occurs there should not be any question as to whether the person/persons responsible be relieved of their duties.When there is permanent physical or emotional damages are also inflicted the person responsible should be immediately discharged. It this question pertains to law enforcement, then i most definately think that if an officer involved in such an incident then that officer should be dismissed from the police force. The lack of trust that civilians have for law enforcement is historical.In the future i think it is important that trust be restored between the police and cititzens. When an incident like that occors it further puts law enforcement at odds with the citizens that they serve. (2)I think supervisors should not be held criminally or civilly liable for their subordinates actions if there is evidence that the supervisor followed policies and procedures when the subordinate was being trained for that job.If an investigation proved that the subordinate was not properly trained to perform their job in a non-erroneous way then the supervisor should be held criminally and civilly liable.(3)I think The Circular Use of Force Continum should remain in tact and i don't think i would add anything to it. I compared it to the Linear Use of Force Continum and i thik it was a big upgrade when departments started using the Circular Use of Force Continum instead of the Linear. The Circualr added a very important factor which was COMMUNICATION which was noticeably absent from the Linear Continum. In place of communication, the Linear had "verbal direction" which tells me that there would be a one-way dialogue carried out by the officer. The Circular Continuim's addition of the communication factor makes it more reliable and gives the interaction between an officer and a suspect/perpetrator a chance to resolve a confrontational issues before it escalates into a situaion which would result in a loss of life. A perfect example of this would be Carole's stroking of a suspect's head in a non-verbal communicative way to calm the suspect before an arrest was made. :-)
ReplyDeleteGood morning Carole!
ReplyDeleteGood morning Ericka!!
ReplyDeleteI answered the 2nd part of the question incorrectly. I don’t believe that the supervisor should be held criminally or civilly for his/her subordinates actions. If a subordinate took it upon him self to do something stupid that he knows or should have known that was wrong, than that person should be held accountable for his or her actions. The supervisors are there for guidance not to hold each person hands as if they are children and make sure they do right. It’s not fair to that supervisor to be punished for his subordinates lack of good judgment.
ReplyDeleteGood morning to you all. Thank you for your excellent responses and for your continued efforts.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood Morning Dr. Kalam and Thank you!!
ReplyDeleteGood morning Sir!
ReplyDeleteGood morning everyone.
ReplyDelete1. Well first of all we have to asses the severity of the error whether it was something minor or major, then we have to look at the state of mind (mens rea) of the individual at the time of the error/incident. I believe that an error done intentionally at a high severity level meaning causing damages physically, psychologically or structurally for that matter is grounds for dismissal.
ReplyDelete2.I believe that no one should be responsible for somebody else’s mistakes, the only time I would agree that a supervisor should be held liable in part for the actions of a subordinate is when the act was committed in the presence of the supervisor and he or she could have prevented it. What would a prudent person do in the position of the supervisor?
3. I would not change any aspect of the model. The “use of force continuum” (model) is to accurately guide a reasonable response for virtually any situation. Overreaction may not only be unconstitutional, it may also be ineffective. Under reaction may allow harm to come to the officer or others. In my opinion, it is important that the use of force be thought of as a continuous stream of decisions and actions, appropriate in relation to the subject’s actions.
Alejandro
ReplyDeleteI agree with you as far as the supervisor should be held accountable if the act was done in his or her presence and did not do anything about it. If a supervisor gives someone an order to do something and something goes bad because of it, then that supervisor is liable. “Direct order!” remember those words. And if a person is not in a right state of mind and does something in a job that ends up hurting himself or someone else, then that person should still be dismissed from the job. That person should not be at the job because he might be incompetent.
Good morning Alejandro, if the supervisor in question did not follow department policies and procedures in the training process of the subordinate to ensure the safety of persons they come in contact with, don't you think the supervisor should be held both criminally and civilly liable? How else would the subordinate know without the proper training from the supervisor especially if they had no prior knowledge?
ReplyDeleteEricka
ReplyDeleteThank you!! You are soooo right. I don't think Alejandro see it that way. If a supervisor followed proper procedures then he will be ok but he didn't and gaves an order that causes a problem then that supervisor should be held liable.
Carole and Ericka:
ReplyDeletewhat I mean when I say (state of mind) I mean whether the act was Intentional or negligent, not to be confused with baker act.
Carole i guess we are on the same page then. When a supervisor provides a subordinate extensive, proper training that follows departmental policies and procedures it is not only for their benefit but for the safety and protection for the citizens they serve. When the supervisor fails to properly train and instruct their subordinate then they should bear some of the responsibility for their incompetence also. As subordinates how else would we know?
ReplyDeleteEricka
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly!!!
Carole and ericka
ReplyDeleteKey word knowingly, if the supervisor is able to predict/anticipate the action whether the subordinate was trained or not he/she should be held liable at some level.
Alejandro
ReplyDeleteOK if you put it that way.. i can understand what you are saying. But, even if the person did the act in error, that person's work history should be evaluated. maybe that person is always making the same mistakes. if a person keeps making mistakes at a job, the person might not have been trained properly or the job is not for that person.
I totally agree with you Carole, if a subordinate was trained properly i think their ability to perform their tasks for that job position, the probability for a criminal or civil liability should be at a minimun if not non-existent. If a subordinate had pre-existing expertise, knowledge and training in that particular field then i really don't think that they would have applied for a subordinate position rather they would have applied for a supervisory position where they would be the one providing the training.
ReplyDeleteCarole
ReplyDeleteI am so glad you understand me. The rest is protocol, thank you.
Human error should only result in dismissal if the employee performs improper conduct. Some of factors are abusing sick-leave, sexual harassment, insubordination and using threat of violence at a place of work. Abusing sick-leave is when a healthy employee purposely calls in sick to avoid attending work. This act alone can affect certain businesses that require a full staff in order to operate efficiently. For instance, a restaurant such as P.F. Chang needs a maximum of 15 servers and 4 bartenders present on the weekend; which is the busiest days the for the bistro. If a server is ill and does not call in a sick ahead of time before his shift begins, it will be difficult to find a substitution to cover that server’s shift within little time. Thus, abusing this feature would be if a server continuously doesn’t show up for work and calls in sick hours after his shift was suppose to be worked. This can devastate the business because with little time to a seek replacement, the 14 remaining servers who attended their shift, must work harder by picking up extra tables. Each server is assigned a set number of tables to operate in order to maximize great service to their guest. If they work extra tables, this will decrease their performance towards their guest. As a result, a load of guests will complain to the manager about the poor service they received. This will disturb the business to gain profits because the guest will be given compensation towards their bill; and the business will lose money. Moreover, the act of sexual harassment involves a victim and a perpetrator; where the perpetrator unseemly touches the victim inappropriately. This action can lead to stalking and rape. Therefore, it is imperative that the manager must acknowledge such existence and terminate the executor. The exploitation of insubordination is common at a work facility. This occurs when employers become disobedient towards their executive in regards to following commands. It is nearly impossible to implement a successful business if your staff is rebellious. To overcome this obstacle, a good manager must dismiss the noncontributing workers in order to run the business productively. After everything else, the use of threatening violence at work place is unacceptable. A skilled manager must eliminate employers with such aggression to prevent causalities.
ReplyDeleteA supervisor should not be responsible for their subordinates civilly if he gave proper training to their staff. In contrast, a supervisor should be criminally responsible for their subordinate’s acts, only if the supervisor acknowledge a crime was committed and he does nothing about it.
The Circular Use of Force Continuum guidelines are fine. I wouldn’t alter it because police officers are equipped with efficient weapons and they have immense authority.
Good Morning Professor,
ReplyDelete1. Human error varies through through different levels, such as petty error to severe error. To result in dismissal, it depends on the discretion of the person who is in charge or supervising; it also depends on the severity of the error. It could be punishable verbally, by writing, meeting, and even dismissal. For instance, some severe human errors that could result in dismissal is tardiness and absence(loss of morale), theft, unsubordination, fighting, disrespect, etc.; its all the factors that go against ethical and moral behavior.
2. Not totally in agreement with supervisors being held criminally and civilly for their subordinates actions. They do have the responsibility to see their subordinates are performing the job adequately and oversee their behavior, locations, etc. But when subordinates committ illegal actions or actions that are not acceptable to the agancy's rules, supervisors should not be held responsible. But like Alejando said, supervisors should be held responsible if they knew about it and did not report it or could have prevented.
3. In response to the Continuum, I would not change any aspect of the uses of forces depending on the situations police officers encounter. It is really common sense, low resistance is first used to uncooperating people who are given multiple warnings verbally; but if uncooperation persists, the officer can move up the Continuum to more physical resistance such as grabbing and escorting the uncooperting person out the premises after he was warned. Hence, if a person is using violent behavior and force that could hurt others, the officer can move to deadly force or other methods of the continuum to control the situation.
Sorry for the long post guys..... :)
ReplyDeleteAlejandro,
You made a good point on the 2nd question. my response was similar. Supervisors cant control people but if they witness the crime and do nothing about it, then they should be liable also.
Carole,
I don't agree with your response in regards to the second question. Supervisors are here to guide their staff, your right. But what happens when they witness their own employers stealing within the facility? This can affect a business dramatically because they would lose money. By not taking action makes you more accountable for the situation, it is like you're helping him steal.
Leon,
ReplyDeleteNo, I do agree that a supervisor should be held accountable if he/she witnesses and employee do something wrong and not do anything about it
thank u carole :)
ReplyDeleteMike & Leon
ReplyDeleteVery good insight, the examples were good. Right on target.
Week 2 questions from Chapter 9 and 10
ReplyDeletePlease answer the following questions and if needed, explain your answers fully. You are required to turn in the completed questions on December 12, 2009 at the beginning of the next class session (8am).
Thank you.
1. What is motivation?
2. What theories of motivation have been proposed by Maslow, Herzberg, Skinner,Vroom, and Morse / Lorsch?
3. Which kind of reinforcement is more effective?
4. When should reinforcement occur?
5. What are the most common external motivators?
6. Internal motivators include what?
7. What factors might be responsible for morale problems?
8. Who is most able to improve or damage individual and department morale?
9. How morale might be improved?
10. What should promotions be based on?
11. Should promotions be from outside or from within? Explain your answer
12. How do morale and discipline differ?
13. What is the main purpose of discipline?
14. What is the foundation for most disciplinary actions?
15. What is a fundamental management right?
16. What is the 10/80/10 principle?
17. How is a problem employee characterized?
18. What types of personalities might be likely to result in problems?
19. How can managers deal with problem people?
20. What is a primary rule for the timing of discipline?
21. What should be considered when assessing penalties?
22. What steps are usually involved in progressive discipline?
23. What is a balance of consequences analysis?
24. What consequences are most powerful?
25. How can managers use the balance of consequences?
26. What does the PRICE Method consists of?
27. How much time do effective praise and reprimands require?
28. What ratio of praise to blame is usually needed?
Thanks Alejandro
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewrong group Elise.
ReplyDelete=/
Question # 1
ReplyDeleteI don't think someone should be fired just for making a mistake BUT if it must be done, we have to take into consideration: how long the individual has been in this particular position, how much knowledge/training this person has, how many previous errors were commited by the same person and the severity of those errors, what steps were taken to prevent any future errors & correct those that had occurred(if any),was this individual given any type of warning -verbal/written...
Question # 2
ReplyDeleteDepending on the severity of the situation, I do believe a supervisor should be held responsible. Sometimes an individual is hired to perform a job that he/she may not be properly trained for or is not experienced enough--an accident could occur--. Even when most governmental jobs require an extensive background check, it has happened that the person has been hired before the entire screening process has been completed, in some cases the applicant has been highly recommended by someone from a higher position or for any other reason like: short on personnel, owe a "favor" or just personally known by a superior. Sexual predators have been hired, active drug addicts/alcoholics. How many pilots fly a plain while highly intoxicated? In that type of scenario, the supervisor should be fired on the spot and charged with a crime.
Question # 3
ReplyDeleteI would not change or alter anything as it will just affect the officers.
1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer.
ReplyDeleteThis is decided solely upon the policies and procedures that a department adheres to, also the ability of the supervisor to execute swift a severe. With that being said, whenever it is clear in black and white that an employee made a violation that’s has grounds for dismissal; and the error is NOT based on lack of departmental training or education the employee is definitely marked for dismissal.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates’ actions?
Usually, no aside from scenarios whereas supervisors are held responsible for their subordinates possessing adequate training and they fail to do so. For example, you have an employee in the field or scope of duty who is properly trained and has the know-how of carrying out their duties or task should have to answer for their actions. Supervisors should not have to take the “hit” from outside entities for an employee that fits into the 10% that are the trouble makers based on the 10/80/1o. In the case of an employee who is well trained, the answer is no. in the case of an employee being under trained or whose skills are not up to par that falls on management the answer is “yes”.
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum takes into account much of what a police officer may need to do. Do you think there is anything that may have been left out? Would you change any aspect of the continuum?
The topic of use of force is very a controversial topic. First, there is a huge disparity between what is covered under the use of force continuum and what officers often choose to do on their own. As if to say, what is the purpose of having one? When in the spur of the moment police and correctional officers react off impulse and not policy or in this case the “use of force” continuum. I would change some aspects of the continuum. There are some gray areas that need to shaded in. For example, you haves a 5’2 110lb female officer trying to subdue a 6’7 320lb subject who is resisting with violence. Based on this scenario, there is no way that the officer would be successful in bringing down the subject down if she adhered to the continuum. I would implement steps that will cover these issues allowing the officer to go beyond incapacitation and permit that officer to respond with deadly force.