Employees need to have a clear relationship with their employees. They need to understand how the recruitment and retirement exercise works for them to plan their schedule. The employees have to work on their variation and flexibility since the market required employees who have such skills. Long time employees of the company need to change their perception towards the HR department. The HR should reward the most competitive employees. Rewarding would enhance healthy competition within the employees and give them the will to outdo their friends. The HR should compensate employees in injury cases. The department should look after all the employees if it needs to have an excellent workforce.
What are some of the outcomes of the company’s new HR strategy?
The employees gradually change their perception towards the company, the HR department in particular. The strategy enabled them to develop their careers since the company created an excellent environment for expansion. The relationship between employees and employers improved substantially. The company gained recognition from other companies. They recommended the company as the best place to work from. In the year 2011, Lloyds got a listing on Top 100 Best Companies to Work for in the United Kingdom’s Sunday Times. An independent researcher hailed the company as among the UK’s Top 40 Business Brands. The Lloyd brand had a substantial growth in terms of profits and annual income.
What do you think might be some of the challenges of establishing HR policies for a global company?
The main problem would be coming up with policies that everyone will feel represented. Having negative comments from people is understandable. However, if the complaints are more, then there is a problem. The other problem is coming up with policies that are not racial. Being one-sided or neglecting, a group of people will bring about chaos within the company. Policies that favor one gender will bring about problems in the company. Gender equality should be a keynote when setting up the policies.
What types of situations do you think might require an HR manager to say “no?”
One instance where an HR manager should say ‘no’ is when employees try to favor themselves when coming up with a solution to the problem (Difficult Employees and Situations, 2014). Favors in the company lead to more problems rather than solutions. It will lead to chaos within the company from the non-favored employees. Employees who take unnecessary offs or leaves should be told ‘no.' The employees will demand equal pay with others yet they did not contribute to the work within the company.
Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment
As per EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment, Mr. Peter’s actions are not definitive to be summed up as sexual harassment (Sexual Harassment, 2014). From the beginning, the relationship between him and Ms. Gilbury was cooperative. However, Ms. Gilbury wrongly read his motives, making her feel as if he wanted more from the relationship. Ms. Gilbury should have taken action by terminating Mr. Lewiston’s approaches or tell the school about his behavior. Her turning down lunch requests from Mr. Lewiston led to his behaviors. However, Mr. Lewiston should have accepted the turning down of his lunch offers and move on instead of following Ms. Gilbury. Mr. Lewiston is a disturbed person emotionally and in his pursuit to seek friendship and companionship lead to him overstepping the relationship with Ms. Gilbury.
Should the intent or motive behind the Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain
For the case to come up with a ruling, it should Mr. Lewiston’s conduct as evidence. Lewiston’s motives were to hit on Ms. Gilbury something he should not have done because she is somebody’s wife. In a way, his motives seemed to tease Ms. Gilbury but they did not read from the same page. Ms. Gilbury viewed the motives as a relationship something she could not accept. Mr. Lewiston later tried to apologize but in a strange way. It led to Ms. Gilbury to interpret it as a sexual harassment. However, his intentions were to apologize but he did not know the proper way of doing it.
If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you conclude? What disciplinary action, if any, would you take?
Lewiston should first go to a psychiatric hospital to receive proper treatment. It seems the death of his wife affected how he related with other women. The relationship with Ms. Gilbury might have affected his senses and make him feel as if she wanted a relationship with him. Based on the relationship between the two, the case cannot be a sexual harassment. It can be a violation of a person’s privacy (Your Right to Privacy, 2003). Mr. Lewiston crossed the friendship bar and let his emotions drive him. On the other hand, Ms. Gilbury did not play her part by stepping away or reporting the matter before it escalated. Since they both had a good relationship before, she should confront him first and make him understand the current situation. She should also tell him the consequences if he continues his actions.
References
Difficult Employees and Situations. (2014, November 27). Retrieved from HubPages: http://hubpages.com/topics/business-and-employment/human-resources-hr/difficult-employees-and-situations/1017
Sexual Harassment. (2014, November 27). Retrieved from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm
Snell, S., & Bohlander, G. (2012). Managing Human Resources. Boston: Cengage Learning.
