50 Case Studies for Management and Supervisory Training

Case 50: Who, me?

279

Case 50 (continued)

Summary: Part 2—Why me?

The day after the employees notified her of Nelson’s call, Betty met with Nelson. She told him of

the claims made against him. Nelson, somewhat unnerved by the charge, admitted that he made

the call but that he was just kidding. He noted how often everyone in the lab talked about sexual

matters. Betty told him that the women were shocked and offended, and that even though she

understood he had been kidding, she was required to put a reprimand in his file.

Nelson, though upset, did not argue much. However, in the weeks that followed, Nelson’s

performance fell. He became antagonistic when dealing with other employees. He also started

making errors in his work. On one occasion, when Betty called a mistake to his attention, Nelson

accused her of discriminating against him.

Because Nelson had fallen below standard in performing routine tasks, Betty took a first-step

disciplinary action against him. About an hour later, after his disciplinary meeting, Nelson

stormed into her office, shouting that she was racist and that everyone in the lab was out to get

him. He vowed to not let that happen and that he’d get her. He marched out of the office back to

his lab station.

Answers to Case Questions

1. How well did Betty handle the meeting and discussion with Nelson? Did she make the

correct response?

Betty acted a bit prematurely in meeting with Nelson. She should have investigated the

women’s claim more fully before confronting him.

The nature of how she opened the discussion could have been better. The purpose of a fact-

finding meeting is to gather information. However, her approach to the interview could see

m

accusatory to some people and produce exactly the kind of defensive reaction she obtained

from Nelson.

A better opening might be something like:

Nelson, I need to talk with you about some charges made recently to me about your

contacting some women here to meet with you at a local motel. I’m trying to find out

what happened before I reach any final conclusions, and I want to give you the

opportunity to talk about what happened.

Under the circumstances, unless she was responding according to hospital regulations, Betty’s

decision to put a formal reprimand would be considered harsh. There are two important factors

Betty should keep in mind:

• Nelson has been a model employee up to this time and has no prior record of proble

m

behaviors. While he admitted to the claim, such action appears to be a first-time mis-

judgment and not a long-term pattern.

• The discussion climate Betty allowed in the lab could send the wrong signals to

employees about how far discussions can and should go. While this does not excuse

Nelson’s actions, it does serve as a reminder that there was a context for his actions

—

that is, an environment that made his actions more likely to occur. Betty had not taken

any actions to change that environment.