Case Studies Scenarios

Case Studies Scenarios

Scenario 1: Bad Behavior

The Sargent officer Stevens decided to ignore the officers who were making inappropriate sexual jokes. As a supervisor, Stevens is expected to ensure there is a conducive environment for work for all employees in the organization. The female dispatchers who were near these officers might be feeling uncomfortable in such a situation. Ignoring these officers to make such jokes in an organization is wrong and exposes other employees to an uncomfortable and unsafe environment. Although the sergeant did not make a direct approach to the officers making explicit jokes, he documented the incidence in the record. The sergeant may not have wanted to correct the problem in the presence of the female dispatcher who was two feet from the officers. The sergeant should have taken the necessary actions immediately against the two officers. The shift lieutenant has a chance of addressing the problem since Officer Stevens recorded it.

However, the act of reporting the occurrence offers a guarantee to establish good order in the organization. Reporting the incidence to the director will ensure the authority has taken care of the problem, and such activities will be prevented in the future. According to the NCJRS (2004), the order and maintenance are a primary focal capacity of the courts and law enforcement officers. Therefore, to ensure the capacity and order have been established successfully, the courts and police officers should have the capacity to bring the conduct of a large portion of the individuals within the society.  If the authority does not utilize the report recorded by Sergeant Stevens and takes action against the two officers, it can be wrong and lead to an uncomfortable environment for other employees. Officer Stevens should have applied a direct approach against the two officers and report later to the shift lieutenant.

The two police officers were wrong by discussing the explicit sexual jokes at the workplace. However, the employees in the organization come from different cultural backgrounds, but they should maintain work ethics and respect each other at the workplace. Such jokes in the workplace are unacceptable, and they are a form of sexual harassment that is prohibited according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the supervisors continue ignoring such open harassment and fail to offer assistance to the other employees who need a remedy, it can result in civil liability (Meier & Nicholson‐Crotty, 2006). The sergeants are expected to be the key players in handling the inappropriate behaviors in the organizations. Reporting the matter to the shift lieutenant is a better approach to ensuring good order in the workplace than ignoring the incidence.

However, it can be challenging to ensure the organization is clear from the cases of sexual harassment without assistance from the supervisors on the ground. The reports provided by the supervisor are significant and can help the authorities to establish anti-harassment approach strategies. The proactive and strong leaders in the organization should take the necessary measures to ensure such behaviors are not practiced in the organizations. The challenge of sexual misconduct within the workplace may call for changes in the cultural systems of the organizations. Implementation and establishment of the policies are vital steps to ensure the organization is ready to respond to the allegations of sexual harassment (Miller & More, 2017). The supervisor should have addressed the two officers immediately and take the necessary actions to ensure there is proper order in the organization.

Scenario 2: The Difficult Employee

The Sergeant did the right thing by suspending Officer Smith. The officer’s behavior had turned out to be outrageous and could have influenced other employees. The sergeant wants to correct the unacceptable behavior at the workplace, which will ensure there are productive outcomes from all the employees. However, other employees respect the leadership skills possessed by Officer Smith. Therefore, if the officer develops outrageous behavior, it is easy for him to influence other officers. The organization encounters various changes in orders, policies, and directives. If an individual becomes sarcastic about these changes, it can lead to severe outcomes, and therefore, the Sergeant did the right thing to suspect the officer with such behaviors. Also, other officers will learn the consequences of developing such expressions in the organization, which will elevate the officers’ productivity.

The Sergeant actions aimed at ensuring that there is good order at the workplace. The suspension of Officer Smith will enable him, along with other officers, to abide by the regulations and guidelines of the organization. The sergeant should ensure no officer is an exception or excluded for outrageous behavior in the organization regardless of their productivity. If the necessary actions were not taken, Officer Smith could have worsened his behaviors and eventually ran out of control. Therefore, the Sergeant is ensuring the officers are responsible for their behavior and conduct at the workplace. Such behavior can cost the entire organization and make it challenging to impose policy changes.

The behavior portrayed by Officer Smith is both disruptive to other employees at the workplace. For instance, sarcasm towards new directives or changes in policies makes it challenging for other officers to work as a team and can lead to a negative environment. Other employees can lower their productivity due to the negative behavior of one individual. The law enforcement department requires a high degree of teamwork, and inappropriate behavior among the employees can affect the performance of the entire department. The problem employees have been portrayed in various categories. For instance, there are tyrants, manipulators, defeatists, or erudite.

In this scenario, Officer Smith is portrayed as a defiant employee who opposes the new ideas and changes within the department. Changes within the department can be challenging to adopt, but the employees are not expected to oppose to become reluctant since such changes are established to elevate productivity. The supervisor cannot change the personality of such employees but should ensure the employees conform to the guidelines and codes of the workplace (Bennett et al., 2004). In this scenario, the Sergeant did not confront Officer Smith, but he went ahead and took corrective action by suspending Smith. However, Officer Smith has become less productive, but the department has to impose the necessary changes regardless of the officers’ behavior. If the Sergeant did not take disciplinary action, Officer Smith could have influenced other officers who could lead to the crisis at the workplace.

Therefore, the Sergeant should take necessary activities to address the situation within the department. For instance, employee involvement in policy changes can help the workers to conform to the new changes. The Sergeant should have addressed the issue with all members of the department and solve the root of the problem to ensure all the employees remain productive. The approach will ensure the employees work comfortably and maintain good order (Miller & More, 2017).

References

Bennett, W. W., Hess, K. M., Hess, K. M., & Hess, K. M. (2004). Management and supervision in law enforcement. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Meier, K. J., & Nicholson‐Crotty, J. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850-860.

Miller, L. S., & More, H. W. (2017). Supervision — The Management Task. Effective Police Supervision, 1-46. doi:10.4324/9781315400822-1