Zero Tolerance Policies - Essay Example

? Zero tolerance Task: Part-A assessment This article is about zero tolerance policies in the work place. Zero tolerance policies refer to strategies that allow for meager compromise on consequences of certain work place mistakes (Punch, 2007). This may relate to scenarios such as violence, harassment, internet and intranet policies. In Simon’s case, he had participated in contravening a company’s internet policy (Gerson, Parker, Volokh, Halloran, Cherkasky, 2006). Simon had utilized the company’s intranet to communicate with an unauthorized personality out of the network. The violation was gross since the company had sculptured clear conditions about the policy. This included clear indication of the relevant consequences. The management had notable controls in the same situation. To begin with, it laid a clear policy. This policy indicated that it banned use of the company’s internet and intranet in communication under unstated uses. The company also stated that unwarranted internet use and e-mailing could result into the termination of employment. In addition, the company employed strategic measures of terminating Simon’s tenure. The management made an indirect approach of firing Simon. This would be followed by an explanation of the act that led to the tenure termination. There are controlling and coordination skills that are necessary in this situation. To begin with, it is vital that the company harnesses a proper communication channel. This is a system whereby each employee has adequate information about the company’s policies. In this perspective, the company can invest in an automatic e-mail system that updates on company’s policies and the consequences of breaching the provisions. Besides, meetings, between the management and employees, should be regular for physical information and discussion. In certain instances, zero tolerance policies might be stringent. In this sense, discussion can modify the policies to suit multiple scenarios. It is crucial that employees design and agree to zero tolerance policies. This would absolve the management from blame in cases of grim consequences to employees. The solution that the company employed had particular details. The management strove to strike a vital point in terminating Simon’s tenure. Companies would usually employ sane and rational employees. This means that it could apply formal means of communicating with an affected employee (Brooks & Dunn, 2009). Such communication would take the letter or e-mail method for information. Simon could not have possessed the option of not leaving the company. The use of guards was an informal sense of terminating Simon’s employment. It is devoid of modern managements skills since it seeks to be autocratic oriented. This is because the guards could have employed forceful means in case of resistance by Simon. Element of force is evident from the communication between the security officers and the management. The management was monitoring Simon’s reaction for an additional strategy. However, the company had a proper strategy of informing Simon. To begin with, this demonstrates of zero tolerance on certain violations. It also highlights that the other employees should educate themselves of company’s policies. However, the company can utilize other strategies. This pertains to drawing the same sense on a company’s reputation. The vital element in zero tolerance policies should regard their intentions. Zero tolerance policies should seek to highlight the sense of certain behavior. This is different from the focus of merely humiliating employees. Policies should concentrate on processes rather than the consequences of the same. In this view, the company could have employed an alternative strategy of terminating Simon’s benefits. Termination of benefits could achieve the orientation of the breach. In case of an internet’s condition, Simon could have been barred from the connection. Besides, the company could lock Simon from accessing certain information. Additionally, the company could have locked Simon out of general communication between the employees and management. Termination of benefits should occur for a long period. This emphasizes the sense of employees. The advantage of such strategy pertains to the fact that it avoids the scenarios of loosing skilled employees. It also serves to heralds a company as concerned of employees’ welfare. A supervisor plays a vital role in improving employees’ morale. To begin with, supervisors have close relationships with their subjects. This serves to foster an intimate relationship that constantly watches over the employees. Work scenarios may sometimes be selfish because each employee and manager strives to enhance themselves. Supervisors also perform feedback roles to employees (Jex, 2002). This is a scenario whereby there is response to employees’ performance. It is vital for employees to note of their good performances. Additionally, employees should be aware of their poor performance. Employees should always possess the notion that they cannot have wholly poor performances. This serves to rectify specific mistakes. Supervisors enable the scenarios for effective management of individual employees. Simon’s case pertained to breach of zero tolerance policy. The direct consequence of the violation regarded termination of one’s tenure. The article analyzes control and coordination measures that the company utilizes towards maintaining this policy. In this sense, the company has a communication system in which it informs employees of policies and consequences. The strategy possessed the strength of emphasizing on the aspect of zero tolerance. However, it lacked the civility of treatment to employees. Alternatively, the company could have terminated certain Simon’s benefits. Additionally, the paper heralds supervisors as vital in enhancing employees’ morale. Part B Solution It is notable that the management possessed identifiable management controls. However, there are management skills that were required in this situation. In terms of planning, the management ought to have provided clear goals of constructing the zero tolerance policy (Jex, 2002). Zero tolerance policies cover wide areas of discipline, security, safety and health. Organizations emphasized, on human state, as relates to their designing of zero tolerance policies. It is vital to highlight that organizations must carefully choose, of their entities, to zero tolerance policies. This is the relevance of setting goals. In this sense, the management can easily identify of entities that do not deserve a zero tolerance policy. In the traditional context, the most essential element in the zero tolerance hierarchy pertains to human safety. This means that every condition should relate, at some point, to human welfare. For instance, work place violence is a gross concern of employees since some employees may face the same in silence. In addition, workplace discrimination is a factor that contributes to poor health of employees in terms of psychology and work productivity. Therefore, it is crucial to emphasize on human welfare when designing such policies. This is because human health is a vulnerable area that has a single chance of occurrence. This is different from aspects, such as an organization’s reputation, since they can be reclaimed. Thereafter, an organization can include other entities such as discipline and IT related policies. It is vital for the whole organization to be engaged in the formulation of such policies and goals towards the enforcement. In this sense, the new systems belong to the ownership of employees. This is a scenario whereby the employees would not blame the management for enacting punishments. The employees should highlight respective goals such that they note the vitality of such conditions. In this stage, the employees can eliminate entities that do not deserve zero tolerance conditions. This tackles the situations whereby productive employees would be lost by an organization (Punch, 2007). Thereafter, the organization should propose consequences for respective violations. It is crucial to highlight that not all violations should result into the termination of their tenures. The intensity of punishments should be in tandem with the nature of violations. This ensures agreement to fairness in execution of punishments. This is the point that marks the disparity between ethics and values. Ethics are agreed principles of conduct that is coupled with enforcement. On the other hand, values are company standards that an organization does not enforce upon the employees. Values rely on the employees’ discipline in respecting a company’s vision. The company should engage organizing skills of assigning duties. To begin with, the organization should have a monitoring unit. The monitoring unit is an entity that vets goals and match the same with the progress of the organization in respecting designed standards. In addition, the monitoring unit entails a watchdog unit that extracts and handles information of violation. In terms of Simon’ case, the unit should track the internet system in order that it notes of deviations. This is an aspect, of controlling, that deals with transmission of data among various departments in the office. In this system, the specialist would forward reports and proof of violations to the head of the department. Thereafter, the IT department manager would communicate with the HR entity. In this sense, both the departments have to discuss whether the supposed violation meets the respective standards. In the analysis of this solution, the management had notable controlling techniques. To begin with, the management informed all the employees of their IT zero tolerance policy. This pertained to the fact that the company would not allow unauthorized internet and e-mail use. This means that the employees and the management would only utilize the company’s internet system for stated company’s purposes. The company provided that it employs its internet system for scientific inquiry. On the other hand, Simon had linked with an individual that did not belong to the company’s intranet system. This is coupled with the idea that the company had laid clear consequences of contravening the policy. This is constructive in the sense that every employee was aware. In addition, the company designed a gross consequence of deviating from the condition. Such consequences are essential for reinstating an organization’s stand on its highlighted matters (Jex, 2002). This violation could result into legal implications and loss of reputation by an organization. Such implications have long lasting impacts on a given organization since the recuperation would consume significant time. Furthermore, the organization employed proper skills of coordination in executing their solution. It is notable that it engaged the HR manager in carrying out the dismissal. She performed the purpose of communicating to Simon about the violation. Additionally, the management employed the guards as a means of ensuring smooth dismissal. However, this might have not been the most suitable strategy since it connoted a sense of forcefulness. The management would have communicated through e-mail to inform Simon of his dismissal and violation. This would not arouse a difficulty since the company would terminate his benefits. Termination, of benefits, would automatically push Simon out of the company. As a rational and sane employee, he would react appropriately to information about dismissal. This is evident from the perspective of communication that was occurring between the management and the guards. Alternatively, the management could have employed a strategy of demoting Simon. This is because organizations should seek to strike an emphasis on the value of certain conditions. However, this should not operate on humiliation employees. This is a focus that concentrates on observance rather than punishment (Brooks & Dunn, 2009). The process, of observance, is a vital system that fosters a company’s tradition. On the other hand, consequential solutions serve to strike fear among employees. In this sense, the company could have barred Simon from certain benefits. Apart from one’s salary, punishment could achieve the orientation of violation. This violation pertained to modern communication systems of e-mail and internet. This means that the management could have barred Simon from the communication system. Alternatively, the respective department could lock Simon from accessing certain information. The period of this condition should last in order that it strikes sense on the rest of the employees. The management plays a crucial role in zero tolerance scenarios. To begin with, the management has to stress on the idea that zero tolerance policy is a process oriented strategy rather than a punitive mechanism of pressuring employees to follow companies’ conditions. It is discernible that company goals, that the company awards zero tolerance policies, would create a negative connotation among employees (Jex, 2002). Before the management agrees on such policies, it would be recommendable to accord, every stakeholder, a proper objective for the same. This suggests that zero tolerance policies should have clear goals. Inadequate and poorly designed goals are a sign of inappropriateness to certain goals. In this context, zero tolerance policies are vital for highlighting company policies that the employees are most likely to ignore in the execution of their duties. This is the motive for setting restrictive conditions for company aspects such as communication and related internet activities. In addition, it set the boundaries of the office environment as different from the domestic front. This heralds the company’s assets as vital components of absolute corporate work. The management’s involvement accords common objectives. For instance, clear observance of zero tolerance strategies leads to quality production. This is because every step in a production process attains maximum attention. A relevant instance pertains to strict use of relevantly educated employees in a production process. In this sense, the strategy contributes to economies of scale since every employee produces one’s maximum potential. In turn, the company concentrates on having satisfied employees. In an indirect sense, this produces a constructive image for an organization. The strategy of addressing a workplace challenge pertains to early intervention. Enforcement of such a policy does not suggest automatic termination. It is crucial to achieve a feasible balance and extensive scenario for decision. In spite of the fact that policies may indicate of termination, it is crucial for the management to check the circumstances that surround a mistake. A right balance refers to a workplace consideration of employees’ entitlements. Managers may enact strict policies without compromising on employees’ rights. However, such a balance creates tension and a difficult environment for work by various entities. In as much as managers strive to provide a fair environment, employees continually demand of a fair environment. This struggle of equality and safety creates a contravening block to progress of zero tolerance policies. A diverse management should not strike a focus of only eradicating individual behaviors. The management should focus on progress that occurs at the larger organizational and group level (Brooks & Dunn, 2009). This approach props on the view that managers would be instrumental in indicating positive behavior. This is coupled with the efforts of reinforcing commendable ethical and civil standards. Reinforcement is a concept of rewarding notable positive progress towards the goals of zero tolerance policies. The reflection of fairness, on employees, is vital for an organization’s unity. It also surges the quality of employee cooperation and willingness to work as a unified community. This accords an organization the competitive advantage over rival companies. Fairness, in zero tolerance policies, requires that managers treat safety in the same measure as equality. Reference Brooks, L. & Dunn, P. (2009). Business & professional ethics for directors, executives & accountants. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Gerson, B., Parker, J., Volokh, E., Halloran, J., & Cherkasky, M. (2006). The Reign of Zero Tolerance. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 39-52. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database. Jex, S. (2002). Organizational psychology: a scientist-practitioner approach. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Punch, M. (2007). Zero tolerance policing. Bristol: The Policy Press. Read More