Peer Reviewed Sources - Essay Example

I would not consider Newton a problem employee, but consider the given situation a problem. This is due to the fact that there must be associated issues concerning employee-employer relationship linked up with the actual situation in this given case. Based on the description of Gittell and Douglass (2012) of hybrid relational bureaucratic approach in an organization, this methodology could play a significant function in role-based relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect which according to them could also encourage the attentiveness of participants on certain situations.

Based on the idea about bureaucracy, what is important in this approach is the thought that Newton should be involved in a hierarchy, which is an actual situation in an organization where he could adapt the role that each member should consider - with all respect to what would be deemed as something good for the entire group. For this reason, Newton must be able to participate in the actual prevailing situation in an organization with all the willingness to adhere to it by responding to the common good.

Thus, it is important to apply necessary roles emphasizing the given situation, but the bottom line of this, particularly in the hybrid relational bureaucratic approach is communication. Thus, there must be a need to consider solving problem associated with the given situation, by making it clear at Newton’s point of view that order should prevail.Considering that Newton’s actuation could probably be off-putting to other employees and eventually to the entire operation, Newton must therefore have incurred something that must have gone beyond the norm and is considered offensive, which at some point may stand as ground for potential violation, something that the company could not excuse with his own level of reasoning.

For this reason, disciplinary actions in line with committing offensive moves at work with corresponding degree of infraction should be given to Newton.The case of Newton is the same as the case presented by Martha (2008), although applied in the context of public school officials and students. There was a problem raised in this case because while school guidelines are present, some of them may go against the students’ First Amendments rights. I should consider this as a potential issue when considering disciplinary actions against Newton.

If any case, depending on the degree of violation committed and aggravating circumstances earned and discharge would be necessary, probable consideration of wrongful discharge should therefore be taken into account. I will particularly refer to the case of British employment law on wrongful discharge for more insights, which can be found in the article published by Brian and Nwabueze (1986). ReferencesBrian, H., & Nwabueze, O. (1986). Wrongful discharge in Britain: Lessons for the United States.

Arbitration Journal, 41, 34-40. [This article provides an insight concerning on the disciplinary action for Newton, if his violation would go deeper as a result of further aggravating circumstances that he would incurr]Gittell, J. H., & Douglass, A. (2012). Relational bureaucracy: structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academy of Management Review, 37, 709-733. [This article discusses about bureaucracy concept, which points out the need of every employee to adhere to the established authority in the group, which is the first point the proponent stated in this paper]Martha, M. (2008). Anti-harassment provisions revisited: no bright-line rule.

Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2, 225-249. [This article presents related case as to the given case]