In reviewing the case I think that Sergeant Williams did make a Sound Operational decision. Due to the facts that he observed Roberts in other similar circumstances not fall for the very flirtatious men that she worked with. Officer Roberts was known for holding her own and being very cocky and too sure of herself (More & Miller, 2007). Officer Roberts was also not afraid to speak what was on her mind and has a lot of common sense and capable of doing the jobs of policing and firefighting (2007). Sergeant Williams was only doing what he thought was best for Roberts who, was putting her with the Officer Tibbett’s, the best Field Training Officer so that she can learn everything she needs to known. Regardless if the (FTO) is a “ladies man”. The mistakes that I found to be were the fact that the sergeant knew of Tibbett’s and Robert’s in a relationship in which he should have addressed at the start. Secondly, after asking Tibbett’s and Robert’s if everything was ok he should have used the Price Protocol. The Price Protocol you: pinpoint, record, involve, coach, and evaluate (2007). In using this method the Sergeant could have assessed the problem and dealt with it before it escalated to the point of were it led them to be now.
According to More & Miller, a supervisor must get involve, scan the work environment in order to pinpoint the performance problems that merit attention (2007). A supervisor must also identify the weaknesses, deficiencies, failures, or overt behavior of subordinates that indicate the need for corrective action. Analyze all relevant factors to determine the appropriate action to be taken. Then initiate and in many cases carry out the disciplinary action. Next, document the case for subsequent review by superiors (2007). In future situations the Sergeant should also make sure the Disciplinary action is fair and equitable for both involved parties. It must be viewed as an essential part of a goal-oriented process designed to control the disruptive behavior of individual employees, while ensuring the overall efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of the work force. They should be penalized in such a way that they learn to achieve acceptable performance standards and exhibit appropriate behavior (2007). Employees who do not respond or who are incapable of making a substantive change become a liability to the department and must be removed from their hob for the good of the service (2007).
Treat everyone as an individual with intrinsic value and the capacity to make a contribution to the organization. Let them know exactly what management expects in term of work performance and on the job conduct. Also make sure to judge by management based on facts and standards rather than on personal opinion or assumptions. According to More & Miller, the failure to recognize and deal with employees needs in these very critical areas often leads to hob dissatisfaction, interpersonal conflict, poor performance, disciplinary problems and high employee turnover (2007). All seasoned supervisors know that rationality is a prerequisite for effective disciplinary action in law enforcement. Proper assignment of personnel to jobs within the organization based on their interest, skill, utility, and specialized training. Necessary and reasonable job related policies, procedures, rules, and regulations formulated to govern behavior in the workplace, meet employee needs, and accomplish the department’s mission, goals, and specified objectives.
Mutually acceptable, institutionalized disciplinary procedures based on a “due process” model that is in harmony with applicable civil service regulations and negotiated collective bargaining agreements (2007). Make sure that there is a formal appeals procedure designed to ensure the fairness of all disciplinary actions and to serve as a check and balance on the imposition of punitive sanctions (2007). I think everyone involved who knew about the situation at hand is a fault because they know the policy and procedures of the department.
The Sergeant is at fault because he knew and did not address the situation before it escalate to the point of a lawyer getting involved and being accused of what conspired under his watch. While no manager really likes the idea of being the disciplinarian, using disciplinary action is an unavoidable part of their jobs. No matter how alert or skillful the particular supervisor is, the imposition of discipline is inevitable in virtually all work situations (More & Miller, 2007). The effective sergeant understands departmental policies, procedures, rules, and regulations; trains and guides immediate subordinates; and is both fair and impartial when dispensing discipline (2007).