Bad behavior and the difficult employee

Scenario 1: Bad Behavior

In the first scenario, Sergeant Stevens' efforts in reporting the use of sexually-explicit jokes in the hallway was an effective way of countering the immediate challenge. With a female colleague's presence in the hallway, disrupting the conversation would have resulted in a lack of harmony and order among the male officers. For instance, if the sergeant had confronted the officers, then it would have been easier for the male colleagues to argue that sergeant Stevens was jealous of their encounters or relationship with the female colleague. The male officers could arguably, state that sergeant Stevens admired the female colleague, hence the source of jealousy on hearing them discuss sexually-explicit content. With such arguments emerging between the sergeant and the officers, it would be difficult for the station to maintain order. In essence, there would be disrespect between Stevens and the other officers. Therefore, Sergeant Stevens' response was highly effective and maintained order in the immediate situation. Sergeants' actions play a crucial role in ensuring law and order among the other officers. The sergeants must, therefore, be cautious while making any decision s regarding their officers. Making a poor response could trigger more violence or disobedience, resulting in the lack of harmony within a station. For instance, if the sergeant had interrupted the conversation between the male officers in the first scenario, a conflict would have ensued between him and them. Essentially, the officers would feel that the sergeant had crossed their boundaries by interfering with their freedom of speech (Gau & Paul, 2019). In this case, an argument could have disrupted peace, resulting in the lack of harmony among officers. However, with the wise decision, there was law and order in the station. Negligence by sergeants could also be detrimental in the maintenance of order within a station. In this case, the negligence shown by the sergeant could be harmful to the station's order. Instead of handling the issue at hand, the sergeant ignored the officers. The sergeant could have implied that such behavior is tolerated at the workstation; hence the officers could repeat the same mistake. Essentially, such an action would be like postponing chaos rather than ensuring lasting order among the officers.

The sergeant could have improved greatly in ensuring the stability of the station. In this case, the sergeant should have called for immediate action against the officers using illegal language at the workstation. For instance, he should have called the officers and asked them to explain why they used such language in the workstation. Additionally, he should have expressed his clear frustrations and displeasure with the bad behavior of his officers. Failing to express annoyance with the behavior could have indicated weaknesses in the sergeant's leadership capabilities, thus rendering him more tempting situations that could disrupt the station's order and stability (Mawson, 2018). The sergeant could also have called a meeting with all his officers and reminded them of the importance of upholding good morals. In this meeting, the sergeant should have expressed the consequences of failing to abide by the set guidelines. By directly dealing with the issue at hand, the sergeant would have ensured a long-term solution to bad behaviors. To ensure good order, the sergeant should have engaged all his officers by reminding them of the existing guidelines, protocols, and restrictions that must be followed.

Scenario 2: The difficult employee

In this second scenario, the sergeant responded effectively to the difficult employee. With Officer Smith being difficult to deal with, reporting him was the best decision the sergeant could take. In this scenario, the sergeant filed disciplinary charges against the difficult officers. In essence, attempting to deal with the officer at a personal level could have been fruitless as the officer depicted high disregard for authority and order within the station. If the sergeant had failed to report the officer's bad behavior, it was easier for him to spread such behavior to the other officers. Even though highly productive the officer could be detrimental to the station's stability, he needs to be cautioned (Anderson, 2020). With such resistance to authority, Officer Smith would have easier to start openly opposing moves presented by the sergeant. Open objections could have triggered disrespected from the sergeant's juniors, thus disrupting the officers' peaceful coexistence. However, the sergeant's effective decision to report such behaviors proved essential in controlling the station's stability.

In this case, the sergeant's actions ensured the presence of good order in the station. If the sergeant had failed to make the disciplinary move, the station would be faced with various challenges relating to disobedience from other junior officers. With such high influence on the other officers, Officer Smith could oppose every move made by the sergeant, making it difficult for him to control his juniors. However, reporting the matter tamed the officer's evil ambitions and disregard for authority in his station (Reynolds, 2020). If the sergeant continued to ignore such bad moves by the officer, it would have been difficult for the station to sustain order as more officers would have joined Smith in disregarding authority. However, the sergeant's decision could have also disrupted the order in the station. For instance, if the sergeant had initiated a direct confrontation with Officer Smith, it would have been easier for enmity to brew between them. The juniors would also observe bad behavior from their sergeant; thus, they would also start disregarding his policies and decisions. The sergeant's decision to ignore the issue could have also brewed more chaos rather than peace in the station. For instance, Officer Smith would continue feeling that he is entitled to opinion against authority. With such negligence, any other officer could also start behaving like Officer Smith, making it difficult for them to be managed. 

The sergeant in this scenario could have performed better than the decision he took. In resolving the issue, the sergeant could have ensured Officer Smith's productivity did not drop while also taming his overall behavior. For instance, the sergeant could have summoned the officer to his office and made a constructive engagement with him. In such a meeting, the sergeant could have expressed his displeasure with the officer's behavior. The meeting could have served as a perfect opportunity for the sergeant to understand why his most productive officer continued resisting new policies and directives. Through this meeting, the sergeant could achieve a lasting solution with Officer Smith. Consequently, the officer could not have faced disciplinary actions if the sergeant had dedicated his time in attempting to counsel him. Eventually, the officer's productivity would never drop. In ensuring good order, the sergeant, in this case, should have first used dialogue to persuade Officer Smith to transform. With such a measure, it would be easier for the officer to continue his productiveness. Additionally, Officer Smith could use his transformative behavior to influence other difficult officers to abide by the set regulations. 

References

Anderson, E. (2020). 9 ways to deal with difficult employees. Forbes. 

Gau, J. M., & Paul, N. D. (2019). Police officers’ role orientations.  Policing: An International Journal .

Mawson, A. (2018). Mental Health Among Perpetrators: Police Officers’ Perceptions.

Reynolds, D. L. (2020). Unpacking the Untapped Potential of First-Line Supervisors: Sergeants' Role in Managing Police Discretion. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany .