The case of Newton is an obvious example of a problem situation as opposed to Newton being a problem employee. The reason for this line of thought is the fact that the determination of whether a person is a problem employee is a process. A single incident cannot be used to make the conclusion that a person within an organization is a problem employee. To come up with this form of judgment, management needs to look into the track record of the said individual. In analyzing the track record, management has to show a general trait of going against the expected code of conduct (Marson, 2013). This is an aspect that has not been addressed in the case of Newton and his tattoos.
Furthermore, labeling a person as a problem employee requires that investigation on the issue needs to have been done; with the definite wrong doings or violations an individual is responsible for highlighted. It is not the case here since the tattoo issue is a one-time occurrence that requires immediate attention.What makes this a problem situation is the fact that no clear institutional guidelines are touching on the issue. As pointed out in the case, the department has no policy that touches on how officers should approach the issue of tattoos. The implication is that as the police chief, I am faced with a situation where the solution to the problem depends on my judgment. Like every other problem situation, it is important for this issue to be handled appropriately and uniquely. All facts need to be straightened out since the situation has the potential of compromising the productivity of the department (Marson, 2013).
It is common knowledge that tattoos have become a common occurrence in the modern society. People are increasingly having various types of tattoos as an indication of their beliefs, stands, and convictions. I normally would have no problem with the kind of tattoos that a person has, but as the chief of police in the department, I have the responsibility of ensuring that the agency remains productive. Newton has first to recognize that he is jeopardizing the productivity of the staff. As a responsible officer of the law, I would expect him to do all he can to improve the productivity of the group. Based on his response, however, it is evident that he has no interest in doing that, meaning that he forces my hand to order him to cover the tattoo.
As the chief of the police in the area, I am responsible for the image of the police that the community has. Given that the fellow workers within the department are concerned with the nature of the said tattoos, the perception that the public has must be worse. Officers of the law have to present themselves with some level of dignity and being perceived as disrespectful to women, as the tattoos show is not one of the ways to achieve this. It would be for the greater good that officer Newton covers the tattoo. Besides, the incident would be a reminder of the need to come up with a tattoo policy. Like every other institution, it is prudent for the department to come up with clear guidelines on how issues, especially controversial ones are handled. A tattoo policy would be very helpful in such situations.
Ramifications to consider
The consequences of this decision are majorly legal. Given the stance which Newton has taken, it is not inconceivable to see him go to the courts to challenge the policy of covering up the tattoo. There has been a widespread increase in the number of court cases where officers question the decision of various police departments to order them cover their tattoos (Gorner, 2015). Most of the officers in these cases point to the policies as contravening their rights for both speech and expression, given that tattoos are viewed as personal messages. I would, therefore, expect officer Newton to file a complaint with the courts.
The decision to order the covering of the tattoos will seem to be out of touch with the modern day workplace. Many employers duly note that grooming standards have changed over time, and given that they touch on personal liberties, should not be enforced (Tinsley, Plecas, & Anderson, 2003). With the society changing in its perception of what is viewed as acceptable appearance, the decision to order Newton is likely to draw criticism from some quarters. The literature on the issue suggests that the stigma attached to the issue has changed, and tattoos are increasingly viewed as an artistic expression.
In dealing with the situation, I have pointed out that as the chief of the department, I would put in place a tattoo policy to be followed in the department. The system would require officers to reveal the nature of the tattoos they have and cover them while on duty. The policy will have dire ramifications when it comes to hiring. This is because research on tattoos reveals that about 20% of all adults had tattoos, with 50% of the people between the age of 18 and 20 having tattoos (Jones, 2014). The implication, therefore, is that such a strict policy would limit the number of applicants accepted into the department. It would mean that the department would have to forgo the hiring of individuals who would otherwise have been very fit for the job.
In conclusion, the Newton case is an ethical dilemma where the options are infringing on the liberties of the individual or pursuing wider institutional effectiveness. Discourse on the issue shows that the concept of rational basis needs to be applied in such cases. As the police chief, rational basis, in this instance, gives me the freedom to restrict the choice that Newton has in appearance (Tinsley, Plecas, & Anderson, 2003). Though the decision may draw negative ramifications, I believe that it would be for the greater good of the department.
References
Gorner, J. (2015, July 3). Chicago police officers sue over tattoo cover-up rule. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from chicagotribune.com: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-tattoo-lawsuit-met-20150702-story.html
Jones, G. (2014, June 17). Cops and Tattoos: Can an Effective Police Officer Have Ink? Retrieved February 24, 2016, from plsonline.eku.edu: http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/cops-and-tattoos-can-effective-police-officer-have-ink
Marson, J. (2013). Anatomy of an Employee. . European Journal of Current Legal Issues, , 19(3).
Tinsley, P. N., Plecas, D., & Anderson, G. (2003, November). Studying Public Perceptions of Police Grooming Standards. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from policechiefmagazine.org: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=152&issue_id=112003
