FIU Disciplinary Action Against Someone and HR Case Study
FIU Disciplinary Action Against Someone and HR Case Study
Description
Case Study: With Friends Like This . . .
One morning, well before the start of your department’s normal working hours, you were
enjoying a cup of coffee in the cafeteria, shaping up your calendar of tasks and appointments for
the day, when you were approached by one of your employees. The employee, Millie Norman,
one of your two or three most senior professionals in terms of service, seated herself across from
you and said, “There’s something going on in the department that you need to know about, and
I’ve waited far too long to tell you.” You reacted internally with both impatience and
annoyance—you were not prepared to interrupt what you were doing, and you had not even
invited Millie to join you.
Millie proceeded to tell you (“In strictness confidence, please, I know you’ll understand
why”) that another long-term professional employee, Cathy Johnson, had been making a great
many derogatory comments about you throughout the department and generally questioning your
competence.
For 10 minutes Millie showered you with criticism of you, your management style, and
your approach to individual employees, all attributed to Cathy Johnson. On exhausting her litany,
Millie proclaimed that she did not ordinarily “carry tales” but that she felt you “had a right to
know, for the good of the department—but please don’t tell her I said anything.”
Although Millie’s comments were filled with “she saids” and “she dids,” and generally
twice-told tales without connection to specific incidents, something extremely disturbing clicked
in your mind while you were listening. Recently your posted departmental schedule had been
altered, without your knowledge, in a way indicating that someone had tried to copy your
handwriting and forge your initials. Two separate, seemingly unconnected comments by Millie
together revealed that only one of two people could have altered your schedule. Those two
people were Cathy Johnson and Millie Norman herself.
As Millie finally fell silent you were left with an intense feeling of disappointment. You
wondered if you could ever again fully trust two of your key employees.
Case Study Questions:
Write at least one fully developed paragraph in response to each of the following
questions:
1. What should be your immediate response to Millie Norman? Why?
2. Do you believe you have the basis on which to proceed with disciplinary action against
someone? Why or why not?
3. How can the human resource department help you in your present concern?
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||