Inefficiencies in Operating the Operations Centre
The Regulatory Review Commission's (R.R.C.) operations centre has recently run into issues with handling an employee, Brian Coffey. Coffey's manager, Monique Ricard, is contemplating how to handle Coffey's behaviour, who has been consistently late to work, is missing deadlines, and even not showing up to work. Ricard is looking for an answer as to how she can possibly terminate or transfer Coffey, as his behaviour has not been documented sufficiently. Problems
The R.R.C.'s problems stretch beyond just Coffey, but it may take an outside perspective to notice them. While Coffey's behaviour is definitely an issue, it is an issue that could have been dealt with by now if management was more consistent with documenting his continuously lackluster behaviour. Another alarming issue with the operations centre is that they have many vacant positions. As job security is virtually ensured, employees may be aware of management's lack of behavioural documentation, as well as the lengthy process in place to transfer or terminate an employee. Causes
Coffey can't be entirely to blame for his performance. There may be issues between people and process, as the amount of documentation and time required to transfer or fire an employee is excessive and may contribute to a lack of productivity. A lack of fit between structure and people is evident in the number of vacant positions and the work load of current employees may be increased because of this, contributing to stress and unmotivated employees. The office layout may also cause of a lack of fit between structure and people, but it's significance is not as important in this case. Goals
The goals focus on not only correcting the issues currently at hand, but also being able to address long-term/future issues. Of course Coffey is an issue and Ricard should focus on either trying to improve Coffey's behaviour, or documenting it so she will have the required evidence to make a decision. It is also important that management takes a proactive approach in documenting all unacceptable behaviour displayed by employees. The company should aim to fix staffing issues. Action Alternatives
The possible alternatives have been outlined by Ricard. Based on meeting criteria the best alternative is to request an extension of Coffey's probationary period, in which Ricard would be able to try improve Coffey's behaviour, or at least document enough behaviour to terminate/demote Coffey. All three goals are met through this action. The other suggestions failed to address the criteria outlined and were suboptimal to the needs of the R.R.C.. Implementation/Contingency
Analysis has shown us that Ricard should attempt to extend Coffey's probation period to attempt to improve, or at least document his behaviour. It is important to know that this will only be an effective alternative if Ricard does properly document his behaviour, and set an example within the R.R.C.. The costs of improving Coffey's behaviour are minor compared to the costs incurred by trying to hire a suitable replacement. In case Ricard can't extend Coffey's probation period she should try to intiate the termination process immediately and continue to document his behaviour over the time period it takes for a decision to be made. Overview
Monique Ricard and Brian Coffey are employees of the operations department at the Regulatory Review Commission (R.R.C.). Ricard is having issues with Coffey's performance and attitude towards his work. Coffey consistently submits work just before or after deadlines and frequently overstays break durations and consistently shows up late. Brian's behaviour hit an all time low when he didn't show up to work Monday and part of Tuesday, and wouldn't agree that his behaviour needed to change. As a government agency it is hard to terminate an employee, especially when his behaviour...