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?
No comments:
Post a Comment