The case of Newton in the police force presents modern day ethical concerns in the management of the Y generation. This generation of employees are more aggressive, assertive and cognizant of their rights. However, even in light of the new approach adopted by employees, the manager must maintain a balance between the organizational concerns and the employee demands. It is this paper’s contention that Newton is a problem employee. One in as much as one would want to exercise his rights, the right comes with a duty. The employee in his ordinary daily engagements must appreciate rights and duties. It is the duty of employees to carry themselves in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful and harmonious cohesion with other employees. This calls for the employee to ensure that in his enjoyment of his rights, he does not disadvantage the other employees.
In that context, Newton has failed. It is obvious that his tattoos make other employees uncomfortable and goes into affecting their relation. In addition, in this age where the gender debate is alive with the women’s position being bolstered, it is negative to employ tactics that portray women as sexual objects rather than useful contributors to the employment industries. It is true that Newton’s naked woman tattoo portrays women as sexual objects rather than positive contributors in the economy. In the long run, the manager must weigh the effects of letting Newton have his way or the overall society. In accordance to the Kantian rule of impressing the majority, the overall society should have its way.
In light of Newton’s misdeeds, I would consider a number of disciplinary actions to be impressed against him. In the first instance, I would have Newton remove the tattoos of his body and then apologize to the entire workforce through a letter. This should be done in recognition of the essential position of women in the workplace and the need for cohesion. However, this approach may be too simplistic and would be met with resistance by Newton. In the event the option fails, I will resort to exercise of my managerial authority. I would suspend Newton and refer his case to the committee in-charge of human resources. This is essentially because it is such a committee that would be able to partially resolve the issues at hand in a way that does not favour any of the two competing sides.
Indeed, in the consideration of disciplinary issues, one must be aware of the delicate need to balance contrasting needs in the organization. In this context, one needs to beware of the constitutional rights granted to the employee and contrast them to the professionalism demanded of the same employee under the employment legal regime. In addition, as a manager one needs to know his limits and extent of powers. It is often flawed for a manager or officer to purport to commit an action that is beyond is powers only for a higher review authority to overturn his decision. This has the propensity to inculcate indiscipline and disrespect towards the officer or manager by his juniors. Finally, the officer also needs to be cognizant of the working policies. For instance, in this case tattoos have not been expressly forbidden. The occurrence of the same can, therefore, not be cured through sackings or firing. An employee must be given second chances in that context.
References
Ivancevich, J., & Konopaske, R. (2010). Organizational Behavior and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies,Incorporated.
Tosi, H., Rizzo, J., & Mero, N. P. (2009). Managing Organizational Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Yulk, G. (2006). Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of Management , 2(15), 251-289.
