Cope With It!

Next Topic:

Coping with loss. How do you handle the loss of a friend, loved one, or family member. If you've lost, I'd like for you to share how you managed the stress, anxiety, depression and loneliness. I will offer my story and my fight to overcome the pain.

Break 4 Humor

True Story:

A woman called into the toxicology department of the poison control unit very upset having caught her young child eating ants.

She was quickly reassured that the ants are not harmful and there would not be a need to bring the child to the ER.

Now calm, the woman then questioned whether or not she needed to continue giving her daughter ant poison to kill the ants.

Obviously at that time she was instructed to bring her child in immediately.

Corporate Politics - Fact or Fiction? Conclusion

My take on the subject is simple. The company did not approve of the actions taken by the manager, but the company also did not prepare the manager to handle such circumstances. My opinion; coaching should have followed. The company lost a dedicated staff member and capable manager. In this case I believe both parties lost and as it  always seems to go, the crook wins - creating havoc for the innocent.

Corporate Politics - Fact or Fiction? Part 3

Was it the letter of the law as written in the policy or something between the lines?

That would depend on how you interpret the statement. The gray area created by this question suggests a number of possible conclusions. The fact is no physical force was used nor was anyone in jeopeardy by the actions of the manager. Now how do you define chase?

CHASE (cheys) verb
1. To pursue in order to seize, overtake, etc.
2. To follow or devote one's attention to with the hope of attracting, winning, gaining, etc.

Well, the manager was neither trying to seize the thief, nor was he attempting to gain a date. It doe not appear as though the manager could be terminated for the chase since the intent further defines the action. In fact the chase was scrutinized, but was not the final consideration.

Our manager, devoted to the company's best interests, was in fact terminated for jeopeardizing the safety of those around him. Not for anyone in the immediate area, but the hypothetical crowd of onlookers who were savagely assaulted or killed by the thiefs imaginary knife, make-believe gun, or of course the very real car. You can't dispute that kind of logic!

My question to you today is whether the punishment fit the "crime". A manager, left alone to police a building w/o any training or direction, made an instictive decision based on the situation.

Would you have done the same or would you have found a different resolve?

Corporate Politics - Fact or Fiction? Part 2

REPLIES:

For those who have decided to PLAY ALONG, you are on the right track. The manager was fired for exiting the building "in an attempt to apprehend".  Although this was not the managers intent, the company determined that there could be no other. Calling security would probably have been the best option, however this company does not employ or contract such professionals. Rather, it is the responsibility of the staff to secure all property to the best of their abilities.

OFFICIAL POLICY:

If the shoplifter refuses to cooperate, do not use physical force, chase the shoplifter, or jeopardize the safety of other customers or associates.

SCENARIO II:

Now, if staff and management are allowed to exit the building to retrieve carts and assist customers with loading their vehicles, how could such a line be drawn. The manager went off the only information he had been given; do not attempt to apprehend a suspected thief - if possible, get a description of the getaway vehicle and license plate. Returning to the first scenario, if we established that was the original intent, how does a company then fire a dedicated employee?

Was it the letter of the law as written in the policy or something between the lines?

Corporate Politics - Fact or Fiction?

I am offering you the chance to PLAY ALONG, testing both your problem solving skills and business sense. I will prompt you with a simple scenario. I will add details to the scenario as well as answer any questions you may have during the process. It is up to you to decide what is right, what is wrong and ultimately, who's to blame.

SCENARIO:
A manager of a big-box retail store was recently terminated for attempting to protect company assets. The manager followed a thief into the parking lot in order to gain an identity description and license plate information. The thief, realizing he had been identified by the manager, subsequently charged the manager with his vehicle. The manager, following company's known LP policy, contacted a district representative rather than the police (contacting the police w/o permission, no matter what the circumstance, is a big no-no for this company). Later that evening the manager was suspended and a week later terminated for violating company policy.

What was the policy?