1

Running Head: BAD BEHAVIOR AND THE DIFFICULT EMPLOYEE

Bad Behavior and the Difficult Employee

Name

Institution

Date
 2
BAD BEHAVIOR AND THE DIFFICULT EMPLOYEE
Bad Behavior

In the scenario, Sergeant Officer Stevens, after hearing the two male officers telling

sexually explicit jokes and, ultimately, noticing a female dispatcher standing significantly close

to the two officers, chose to ignore the immediate situation and instead decided to make a report.

Such decision to disassociate himself from the encounter of his colleagues with unprofessional

behavior constitutes disengagement, which involves withdrawal from involvement in an

unnecessary situation (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009). The choice of making a report to a

higher authority consists in addressing the unethical behavior.

The bad behavior by the two male officers is a form of sexual harassment. Such behavior

highlights unprofessionalism in the workplace and can lead to disruption of the company

(Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009). By choosing to disengage, the sergeant's actions show how

one can just keep one's distance from unprofessional persons in the workplace to avoid problems.

The sexually explicit jokes by the two male officers involve unnecessary social interactions that

are not related to the sergeant's job. Thus, disengaging enables Stevens to maintain a beneficial

professional distance by avoiding to compromise his personal comfort and productivity.

Likewise, the fact that the sergeant does not respond to the sexually explicit joke is enough to

indicate to the two male officers that their behavior is unwelcome to him. Moreover, the decision

to report the unprofessional behavior to a higher authority underscores Steven's obligation to

report the same since such bad behavior can put him and other people at risk.

Nonetheless, Sergeant Officer Stevens could have done better by confronting the officers

directly about their unprofessionalism. Constructive confrontation in dealing with the lack of

professionalism would involve talking about the actual problematic behavior, and not the persons

(Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009). Steven's use of first-person statements could have been
 3
BAD BEHAVIOR AND THE DIFFICULT EMPLOYEE
efficient in a confrontation while avoiding criticizing the affected persons. For instance, the

sergeant could state, "I found it a distraction when you told sexually explicit jokes in the

workplace, which makes it awkward for me to perform my job." The sergeant can also simply

say to the two officers, "I felt uncomfortable when you made sexually explicit jokes." Thus,

constructive confrontation involves focusing on one's reaction, as opposed to labeling one's

colleague as unprofessional. The consequence of such action is that the affected colleague may

be receptive to the concerns.

To ensure proper order, Stevens should use a more direct approach, quietly drawing the

two male officers aside and raising his concerns with them. Also, the sergeant should involve a

higher authority but should do so in a way that establishes a workable solution instead of

punitive action against the officers. Such solution is suitable when the person acting in an

unprofessional manner is not of higher rank (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009). Conjointly,

the sergeant should involve a less strenuous approach by talking with his co-employees who

might sympathize with and discuss his concern. If it happens that many others have a similar

feeling, then the sergeant can bring it up to the higher authority. Moreover, Stevens should lead

by example to maintain good order. Sometimes, one just does not know how to act

professionally. As a result, it is vital that the sergeant should try to ensure they focus on the right

direction subtly. But first, the sergeant has to ensure his behavior is up to standard so that others

can emulate him and he, in turn, can provide his concern non-partisan.

The Difficult Employee

In the scenario, the sergeant addressed the Officer Smith's direct act of misconduct

through disciplinary action. The move involves investigating a concern while observing the

principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, and, where the verdict is that there exists a
 4
BAD BEHAVIOR AND THE DIFFICULT EMPLOYEE
case of misconduct, taking formal action (Bowles and Gelfand, 2010). As is Smith's case,

consequences of disciplinary action include suspension, mainly where the concern involves

serious misconduct; it can destroy or undermine the relationship of trust and confidence between

the primary individuals in the case. Where a fair investigation and disciplinary process

establishes that a concern constitutes serious misconduct, consequences may range up to the

dismissal of the affected party.

By bringing the disciplinary charges against the officer, the sergeant thought that Officer

Smith's conduct was severe enough to call for the action, which ensures that the disciplinary

body takes corrective action or progressive discipline regarding the severity of the charges

(Bowles and Gelfand, 2010). The attitude and behavior by Smith can directly affect the

organization's atmosphere and productivity. Thus, disciplinary action helps create a focus on the

employment issue at hand, keeps the sergeant compliant, and shows respect for his rights as an

employee in the workplace. Also, the sergeant ensures that the other workforce becomes aware

of the intolerance of the organization to such misconduct. The consequences of ignoring or

tolerating the misbehavior can be exceedingly costly and disruptive to productivity, especially

when it causes less satisfaction to jobs, job stress, less commitment to productive efforts, less

satisfying relationships between colleagues, and significant levels of anger and anxiety.

However, the sergeant's response has led to the inhibited performance in Officer Smith. A

more efficient response may involve first discussing the behavior with the employee (Bowles

and Gelfand, 2010). The difficulty emanating from an employee may be due to various causes

and enabling factors such as chronic physical conditions and psychological impairments,

personal unrest, or even the inability to cope with existing workplace stressors. Also, some

people may choose to misbehave in the workplace through the belief that they may get their
 5
BAD BEHAVIOR AND THE DIFFICULT EMPLOYEE
desired results say intimidation. Thus, it is critical to first hold a discussion with the affected

individual and establishing that a problem exists. Accordingly, such meetings could occur in a

private place to avoid distractions or intervention. The sergeant could ensure that the discussion

is confidential and avoid implying anyone's guilt through his words or actions. If possible, the

sergeant could have a different person conduct the meeting, while such third party should be

different from those who may decide on the disciplinary action.

To establish good order, the sergeant should analyze the unacceptable behavior using any

available information and then discuss the concern with the affected party. For effectiveness,

such discussion must address the inadequate conduct without affecting the underlying

relationship (Bowles and Gelfand, 2010). Conjointly, the sergeant should anticipate the party's

response to the concern, which may include anger or intimidation, tears or emotional despair,

complaints, blames silent treatment, or unwillingness to resolve the issue. Further, the sergeant

could document the employee's behavior by including relevant, concrete examples and relevant

details. Such a move ensures that an individual who displays misconduct is less likely to

challenge a disciplinary action or related efforts to correct the behavior. Moreover, the sergeant

should follow up with the individual to identify whether there are any improvements after the

events and ensure that the employee is accountable for continued failure to observe the existing

organizational standards.
 6
BAD BEHAVIOR AND THE DIFFICULT EMPLOYEE
References

Bowles, H. R., & Gelfand, M. (2010). Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance.

Psychological Science, 21(1), 49-54.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice

behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and workgroup psychological safety.

Journal of applied psychology, 94(5), 1275-1289.