The two reports are different because of perception and attribution. For last 8 years, Mike has been an above average driver however Jeniffer has observed that Mike’s performance drastically dipped during last 6 months and Mike became a drunkard over this period. However, the parameters over which Jeniffer evaluated Mike’s performance aren’t clear. Mike is suspected for drinking on the job. And after this accident, Mike was seen with drinks at 3 PM. This accident further strengthened Jeniffer’s perception about Mike’s performance.
On the other hand, Mike has apparently put the facts but he’s left few questions unanswered about not rendering his responsibility like; Mike went far to make a call and inform CTA, he could’ve made a call by any passenger’s phone instead. Moreover, he could’ve ensured the passengers’ well-being and could’ve helped them shifting to other bus. Mike informed Union which wasn’t required at this juncture. When Mike came back and didn’t see the bus, rather than informing the CTA again he simply left the spot and en-route picked a drink again.
Yes, as Aaron Moore, one should definitely ask for additional information. E.g.
1. Facts given by both the person to be verified.
2. Aaron should confirm with CTA, Bicycle rider, Passengers and Union and some other people in the vicinity of accident spot to verify the exact time of accident, exact time of reporting to CTA, the reason of accident. 3. Aaron should ask Mike why he left the spot once he didn’t find the bus and why he had to go far for making one call instead of using some passenger’s phone. 4. Before making his final decision, Aaron should check Mike’s record of last 8 years and match that with last 6 months’ performance to find the reason of his performance dip.
Aaroon should not right away taken the decision as per Jeniffer’s report. He’s new to the organization and shouldn’t jump into...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document