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?
Not to follow or make any attempt to apprehend or stop offenders.
ReplyDeleteCall in-store security who are trained to handle instances like this. Non-security personnel should not persue "thiefs" outside of the store.
ReplyDeleteWell what I think that the policy is that he did the right thing and to sue the Box-Company what they deserve. If the company doesnt want to involve the police than they should be the police. I think the Manager should sue for pain and suffering and loss wages for the period of time. Thats my take
ReplyDeleteFollowing The Story? See what happens next . . .
ReplyDeleteCorporate Politics - Fact or Fiction? Part 2
Following The Story? Approaching The Conclusion!
ReplyDeleteCorporate Politics - Fact or Fiction? Part 3
Chasing someone outside and putting yourself in harms way.
ReplyDelete