Final Case Study
Fact Finding #1
Beginning with the first meeting that was attending by Fester, he was rude to everyone while giving his opinion on the” high level of mediocrity” when it came to team ideas. Incivility refers to rudeness, lack of regard for one another, and the violation of workplace norms for mutual respect (Hellriegel & Slocum pg. 225)
Because Dr. Jerrold did not confer with Knowlton when he decided to add Fester to the team, Knowlton suffered from role conflict and ambiguity because of the expectations Jerrold wanted. Knowlton to take the responsibility for the behavior of Fester’s, but not having the opportunity to participate in the decision to bring Fester to the team added tremendous stress. Dr. Jerrold should have been aware of the conflict between Fester, Knowlton, and the team. He was never present and never participated in the group meetings. Had he been present, he would have been able to acknowledge that Fester had completely taken over the meetings and the group as a whole. Fester started showing signs of workplace violence. He began intimidating not only the team members, but Knowlton as well. Knowlton should have reported his actions to Jerrold. During the hiring process, Dr. Jerrold should have given a behavior interview, performed a background check, and checked previous references. This would have minimized the possibilities of them hiring Fester without knowing some of his past behaviors. Jerrold should have assessed for early warning signs of Fester’s behavior and got him the appropriate use of counseling, put him in an employee assistance program, give him measurable goals, and provide preventative disciplinary actions to help the situation out. Also prior to hiring Fester, Jerrold should have had a formal policy that sends strong messages about workplace hostility; that it will not be tolerated. It should include the consequences that would go along with any of the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document