Managerial Dilemma, Essay Example

People in organizations tend to become more responsive to rules and regulations when they know that the administration has the backbone to make sure that each aspect of the rule is specifically followed to retain organizational integrity. In the case of Paul, his actions put such policies into challenge. Although some might say the situation could be categorized as a gray zone, however, there are clear sections in the company rules that specifically identify with the case and the relative manner by which it should be handled in relation to the proper application of rules in human resource management especially relating to their behavior and attitude towards work.

There are two rules that could identify well with the case:

• Employees who use the different equipments owned by the company need to do so with full control and responsibility of their maintenance and care of the said equipments [which include office materials and gadgets such as that of the laptop].
• There is a strict restriction on the access of lewd websites in the internet and other explicit contents over the web especially during work hours.

Relating to the first rule, Paul’s responsibility over the laptop as he brought it out of the office was solid and subjects him to giving complete attention to how the said equipment was to be used. He was supposed to use it for work and nothing more. Since the laptop is considered as part of the company’s investments, Paul should know better to not use it for personal satisfaction and other activities that may have direct impact on his personal identification of how the equipment would benefit him as a personal user and not as a worker of the company.

On the second rule, the fact that data was saved in the history of lewd websites being accessed during the time when it was under Paul’s care, puts Paul within a distinct position that is questionable by the management. Although he has a supporting story, but do not give any supporting detail about the friend he says have accessed the websites, makes his alibi invalid. The first rule applied to this particular aspect of the case denies him of any alibi of putting the blame on another person [who might have been using the laptop for personal reasons]. Considerably, since it should have been under Paul’s care, it should not have been allowed for any other individual’s access. He should have been careful enough to make sure that the laptop is kept away and not used by another other person other than himself as the laptop itself might have confidential data that could be put into great jeopardy ones it has been accessed by another person not related to the company.

Fred’s role in the case is serving eye of the other members of the organization. Given that he already knows of what has happened, he might already question that integrity and credibility of the rules that the organization imposes for the sake of organizational accountability. Not giving attention to the matter due to the fact that Paul has the right skills for the current demands in the business might give wrong impression on the part of the spectators, the other members of the organization. They might take into account the possibility of being set differently and considered accordingly even if they make deliberate mistakes so long as ‘they are good enough’ to run away from the scrupulous acts that they commit.

People working as a team in an organization should know that they are stepping on the same ground and are following the same rules for them to work together in full accord towards the goals of the organization. Notably, getting the case into a serious context is necessary. Talking to Paul in the first place and presenting to him the possible consequences of his acts could be a good beginning on creating an agreement that would make Paul realize the wrongness of his actions, thus accepting particular points of punishment for the said case.