Looking for experienced case study writers? You have found the right custom writing firm. We have professionals who are ever ready to offer assistance when our clients request for urgent case study help. You can review one of our pre-written sample case study below.
Introduction
Jeffrey Deck is an Assistant Federal Security Director attached to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at Raleigh-Durham Airport, North Carolina. Jeffrey is being terminated due to reports he had filed implicating his supervisor Bob Jewel of incompetence and misconduct including a highly publicized security breach at the airport. The reports had attracted the attention of the TSA’s Professional Review Board (PRB) which is responsible for reviewing allegations of misconduct and mismanagement among TSA’s senior officials. After the review, the board decided to terminate both Jeffrey and Bob. Jeffrey was notified about a meeting between him and the board through email three weeks to the meeting. However, the board acknowledged that Jeffrey was not responsible for the misconduct since Bob, the Security Director, was responsible for providing leadership. TSA gave Jeffrey the option of resigning for ‘personal reasons’ as opposed to summary dismissal without benefits.
TSA representatives denied Jeffrey the opportunity to view the contents of his dismissal letter. The justification for this was that by viewing the contents of the letter, Jeffrey would have been served with a termination notice, prompting TSA to file the termination details including the reason for termination in Jeffrey’s file. Summary dismissal would prevent Jeffrey from being considered for federal employment opportunities in the future. Jeffrey noted that he could contest the removal proposal. However, the board was adamant that a change in management was required and pressured Jeffrey to take the resignation option. On request for three days time to consider the decision and consult with his attorney, Jeff was given an hour to call his attorney. Jeffrey is indirectly being terminated for whistle blowing on his supervisor. By reporting the mismanagement of the security docket, Jeffrey brought out the incompetence and irresponsibility of top leadership in the docket. The PRB after its review was, therefore, convinced of the need to change the docket’s management personnel.
Body
Jeffrey reported Bob’s misconduct without first engaging him on the same. This indicates Jeffrey’s inability to establish a proper and honest relationship with his boss. However, by reporting the mismanagement, Jeffrey took the right action since employees have a responsibility of reporting misconduct and mismanagement by their seniors. This responsibility is founded on laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act that encourages corporate officers to fight corporate mismanagement (Watnick, 2007). Nevertheless, Jeffrey overlooked the alternative of first raising the mismanagement concerns with Bob before reporting them. Raising the concerns with Bob, may have elicited a better relationship between Jeffrey and Bob. In doing so, Jeffrey would have used the strategy of substantiality whereby subordinates manage their leaders by offering important information and guidance to the leaders (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010). This would also have served as a wake up call for Bob to consider the impact of his decisions and conduct on other members of his team. This is founded on the concept of centrality since leaders such as Bob are closer to the organizational internal structure and have higher levels of control (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010). It is very unlikely that Jeffrey would be able to establish and maintain strong relationships with the TSA, especially if his attorney were to advise him to sue the TSA for wrongful dismissal. Failure to take the provided option would also jeopardize future relationships with other federal service leaders since he would not be in a position to gain federal employment. However, there are minimal chances that a relationship with the TSA could be maintained if he decides to retire voluntarily.
Jeffrey is a responsible leader who upholds integrity and professionalism. This argument is founded on the fact that he readily reported the misconduct of his boss. Moreover, the conduct and decisions of leaders are informed by their character and ethical values (Chadler, 2009). His integrity, responsibility and regard for organizational procedures, is evident from his concern over misconduct including the security breach whereby more than 200 bags on a flight to New York were not screened for security purposes. Additionally, rising to the Assistant Federal Security Director is also evidence that Jeffrey effectively managed his professional responsibilities and priorities.
Jeffrey communicates effectively, both verbally and in writing. This is founded on the fact that he was able to effectively relay Bob’s misconduct in the reports he filed. He also demonstrates effective verbal communication during his meeting with the TSA representatives. Lack of communication between Jeffrey and Bob contributed to the problem. The problem is, however, amplified by the PRB board’s decision to review TSA’s management. Communication is an essential tool for conflict management in organizations (Spaho, 2013). Though, negotiations between Jeffrey and the PRB representatives could resolve the issue, the representatives are very adamant on Jeffrey’s resignation. The board also appears to be in a hurry and negotiations are time consuming (Bornstein & Gilula, 2003). This position could further amplify the issue especially if Jeffrey were to refuse to resign and sue the TSA over wrongful dismissal.
The issue was not properly resolved. This is majorly attributed to the adamant position of TSA’s representatives who stressed that Jeffrey should either retire or be dismissed summarily. This hindered negotiation efforts between the two parties. TSA representatives especially adopted a threat strategy during the meeting by stressing the consequences of failure to resign voluntarily. A threat tactic is founded on deterrence whereby, during negotiations the side holding a better position presents the weaker side with the consequences of failing to accept the proposed solution (Spaho, 2013). Further, there was no reference to organizational disciplinary and termination procedures.
Conclusion
The issue would have been handled in a better manner if the parties had referred to disciplinary and termination procedures. Public sector firms should adopt such procedures in order to fairly deal with employee disciplinary and termination issues. This would also eliminate chances of lawsuits from unfairly terminated employees. Management changes should also be carried out in a manner that promotes fairness and justice especially to responsible leaders. Employees who uphold high integrity should be rewarded rather than punished.
Looking for assistance with working on your case study assignment, capstone, thesis, action research, essay, or dissertation? You can now access our case study writing service at very affordable prices. We write our clients’ papers from scratch to ensure that they are original and 100% free of plagiarism.
References
Bornstein, G., & Gilula, Z. (2003). Between-group communication and conflict resolution in assurance and chicken games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(3), 326-339.
Chandler, D. J. (2009). The perfect storm of leader’s unethical behavior: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 70-93.
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. Y. (2010). Organizational behavior: Emerging knowledge and practice for the real world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Spaho, K. (2013). Organizational communication and conflict management. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 18(1), 103-118.
Watnick, V. (2007). Whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: A primer and a critique. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 12(5), 831-879.