Employee Misconduct

Submitted by Group B
Anderson, Todd
Fredrickson, Michelle
Smith, Jared
Thorley, Liz

Salt Lake Community College

COMM 1010-407
July 21, 2015

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3
Project Description 4
Methods 5
Problem Question 5
Analysis of the Problem 5
Criteria 8
Brainstorming 9
Organizing and Evaluating 9
Solution Implementation 10
Conclusion 11
Works Cited 12
Appendices
Appendix 1: Team Contract 13
Appendix 2: Comparison Chart 14
Appendix 3: Participation Points 15

Executive Summary
The following report will detail Group Bs group decision-making project for COMM
1010. The project requires group collaboration to make a well-reasoned decision
using the reflective thinking sequence (Adler, Elmhorst, & Lucas, page 236 ). For
this project Group B created a topic based on a very real ethical dilemma one team
member, Todd Anderson, is currently experiencing at his work place.
Group B collaborated through each step in the reflective thinking sequence to
define the problem, brainstorm solutions, establish criteria to evaluate the
effectiveness of each solution, and choose a solution that would best meet the
needs of all stakeholders.
Group Bs recommends that Todd Anderson terminate the offending employees.
While Group B recognizes that this is unfortunate given their excellent work, the
liability and possible continued risk is too great to allow these employees to
maintain their current position within the company. This solution is ideal for it is
finite in ending the ethical dilemma. It also sets precedence for other employees
that company policies will be fully enforced. This behavior is detrimental to a
companys wellness and success, and cannot be allowed to continue.

Project Description

Todd Andersons subordinates at work have taken advantage of the companys

employee purchase program. These employees have purchased discounted product
from the company and sold it in online in less than the one year time period noted
in their employment agreement. In addition, these employees have profited from
the sale of the product, which is also a violation of company policy. Being their
direct manager, Todd is concerned and wants to confront them about their
infractions of company policy. Todd feels it is necessary for these employees to
immediately end their misconduct in order to protect the companys interests.
Misconduct aside, these employees are otherwise hard working and significant
contributors to his team. Todd is torn between loyalty to his team and loyalty to the
company and their policies.
Group B is a working group composed of five students in COMM 1010. The
assignment was to critically analyze a situation, and recommend a solution Todd
could effectively utilize to resolve this issue while maintaining the best interests of
the company. Group B met four times over the course of one month, and thoroughly
covered all project materials. Group B successfully incorporated information from
the textbook, videos, and canvas site materials into critical group discussions, as
well as the final project. Working together, Group B strongly encouraged
participation in the project by each group member.
Group B felt that it was important to find a solution to this significant real life
problem. The employee misconduct out lined in this scenario is unacceptable and
cannot be allowed to continue, as it lessens the effectiveness of the policy, and
other policies set forth by the company. This is a wide reaching issue affecting not
only Todd and the employees committing the offense, but other employees and the
overall company as a whole. If Group B can logically analyze and implement a
solution that will help Todd, he can in turn share this experience with other
managers who may be facing a similar problem.
The final solution chosen by Group B stands the best chance of meeting the goals
set forth by the group.

Methods

Group B started by creating a team contract that outlines the group norms and roles
for the team and each member (Appendix 1). As a team, Group B chose relational
and task norms and roles that everyone agreed provided the framework to support
a functional working group. Then, using the reflective thinking sequence, Group B
systematically brainstormed, analyzed, and concluded a solution to the problem of
employee misconduct presented by one of our team members. The reflective
thinking sequence, created by John Dewey, is an excellent method for group
problem solving because it allows a group to work together to consider a multitude
of possible solutions and allows for time to reflect and consider each possibility in
depth from several angles. By holding regular weekly meetings Group B used the
methods described below to select what we feel is the best solution to the
employee misconduct problem.
Part I: Problem Question
As instructed, Group B defined their issue in an open ended question (Adler,
Elmhorst, &Lucas, page 146) to avoid prematurely narrowing their thinking to one
solution.
Group B agreed that the following open ended question adequately covered the
ethical dilemma:
What is the best way for the manager (Todd Anderson) to reprimand these
employees for their misconduct?
Part II: Analysis of the Problem
A critical part of good problem solving is taking the time to evaluate the many
aspects of a problem before considering the possible solutions. Many errors are
made (big and small) from quick judgments and reactions to an issue. Taking time
to thoroughly analyze the problem can help bring to light any aspects that may
have been missed in an initial judgment and highlight considerations the may affect
the development of the best solution.

As a group, Group B discussed at length the characteristics, stakeholders, history,

and policies that may affect the problem. Group B also considered the possible
resources that could be used in our development of a solution.
A. Characteristics
1. Devaluation of Products: If these employees were allowed to
continue selling products they received at a discount it could lead to
devaluation of the product itself. Supply and demand is a critical
aspect of their business and by reselling the products online these
employees are lowering the value of the products sold by the company.
Also, the company provides a significant warranty on their products,
and by reselling the merchandise these employees are not providing
that warranty which is a disservice to the public and devalues the
product.
2. Product Scarcity: Since this business serves a specialized niche
market, the reselling of products received at discount could limit the
products the company is able to provide to its customers.
3. Legal Issues: Selling products online could lead to legal issues with
unreported income or sales tax. It is also a trademark violation of the
companies protected trademark and could result in a potential lawsuit.
4. Career Destruction: The potential solutions to this problem could
result in loss of job or career for these employees. Employee
misconduct is a major violation and could even be considered theft
which may prevent these employees from rejoining the workforce in
their chosen career paths. If the issue were to be resolved quietly it
could spare these employees some embarrassment and allow them to
continue a successful career/
5. Setting an Example: The solution to the misconduct of these
employees sets an example to other employees in the workplace.
Abuse of their employee discount could lead to a possible revocation of
this benefit. The downside to a potentially softer solution could be that
it demonstrates to the other employees that the company does not
take misconduct seriously and is tolerant of employee contract
violations. However on the positive side, it could also serve to show
employees that the company recognizes that mistakes are made and
are willing to give second chances which could boost morale and
employees loyalty.
B. Stakeholders
1. Employees: The employees that have been caught in this misconduct are the most
obvious stakeholders. They are the ones committing the offense. Depending on the
solution the employees could be affected in numerous ways including losing their job or
careers. It is also possible for the employees to suffer a loss of supplemental income by

no longer being able to sell products online, and they could be banned from buying
products at a discount which would increase their expenses.

2. Company: The second obvious stakeholder is the company who is heavily affected in
many ways by this issue. It is their employees that are engaged in misconduct, their
policy and contract that is being violated, and their products that are being resold. They
could face negative consequences from their manufacturers because re-sale violates a
contract with the manufacturers. The company also stands to lose two good hardworking
employees if they choose to fire them, resulting in extra time and expense hiring and
training replacements and a potential decrease in productivity.
3. Manufacturers: The manufacturers of the goods they are selling could also be negatively
affected. The manufacturers are losing money because these employees are re-selling
their goods at a discount. They may have to deal with the hassle of changing distributers
because the relationship between them and the company is damaged (possibly
permanently).
4. Manager: The manager in this situation is affected by the time and resources he has to
exhaust in dealing with this issue. He could potentially lose two hardworking employees
and may have to use more time and more resources to train a set of new employees.
5. Families: The employees families are also potential stakeholders in this dilemma. If the
employees were to lose their job, supplemental income, or discounts their families could
suffer. It could also cause relationship conflicts in the home.

6. Other Employees: Any other employees that are aware of the issue could also be
affected. The classic stuck between a rock and a hard place scenario could be an issue
if the employees are aware of the misconduct and are friends with the manager or the
other employees and are torn between reporting it (because its their job) or handling it
another way to maybe save the employees jobs or something. Their credibility is also on
the line. The chosen solution to the problem also sets an example to the other employees
in the company on how the company tolerates and handles contract violations.

C. History
In the past the company has handled issues of misconduct by placing
employees on probation or terminating their employment. Termination is
an effective solution because it immediately puts a stop to the problem. It
also sets a strong example of a no tolerance policy to other employees
who may be tempted to engage in similar misconduct. Termination can
also be a hindrance to the company as well as the direct manager
because of the time and resources they have to use to hire and train new
employees. Probation is a softer approach but can potentially foster the
idea that misconduct is not a serious offense among other employees and
that the contract they signed can be disregarded.
D. Policies/Politics

These employees signed a contract upon hire that clearly outlines a zero tolerance policy for
re-selling products. It clearly states the expectations of the company in regards to products
purchased at a discount as well as the employees responsibility for such products.

This issue also a poses a question of what the ethical solution is. Is it right
to fire these employees for their misconduct? Does the answer change if
you are aware of some hardships the employees (and their families) are
suffering? If an exception is made for these employees what kind of
example does that set for other employees who may consider re-selling
products? Is it fair to make an example of these employees?

E. Resources
1. Websites: In developing our solution as a group, Group B found many
online resources to be helpful in assessing possible solutions and
professional standards for handling employee misconduct.
i. https://llbeancareers.com/employeediscount.htm (Links to an external
site.) LL Bean discount policy Employees who purchase gift cards or
merchandise using the Employee Discount are not to be reimbursed by
anyone; receipt of partial or full reimbursement for any discounted
purchase is strictly prohibited. Cause for dismissal
ii. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276941/Dont-Nike-salesmansacked-job-trying-sell-old-company-issue-trainers-Facebook.html (Links
to an external site.) -Article, man fired for selling shoes he received at a
discount
iii. http://www.lpinnovations.com/page/93discount_abuse_violations_or_theft/ (Links to an external site.) - Articles
on employee discount abuse, essentially providing an employee
discount, or lower cost of goods, to those not eligible.
iv. http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Aamodt%20(5th)/Case%20Study
%20Articles/Case%20Study%207%20-%20Kohls1.pdf (Links to an
external site.) Article, three women fired for abusing discount coupons
provided to employees, threated to be arrested for embezzlement.
v. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/happens-employee-violated-codeconduct-16118.html (Links to an external site.) -Article, possible steps for
dealing with employees who have violated code of conduct.

2. Text Book: Communcation at Work. Adler, Elmhorst, &Lucas.

Pages 235-237, 238-239, 129-135, and Chapter 4.
3. HR Department: Consulting HR representatives could be a great resource to assist in
exploring possible ways to handle this issue and in explaining how companies over all
tend to deal with these issues.
4. Other Managers: Other managers could also be an excellent resource to consult for
advice on confronting these employees.
Part III: Criteria
A. General Goal: Group B discussed the important aspects that the solution should encompass
and decided that as a general goal Group B wanted a solution that would effectively stop the
misconduct from happening, set an example to other employees, and follow the guidelines of
the companys policies.
B. Criteria: After analyzing the problem at length, it was important for Group B to consider the
important aspects that a good solution would encompass. Group B started by compiling a list
of criteria that the solution should encompass.
1. Apply principles of effective communication that we are learning in class
2. Be achievable within our four week time frame
3. Cost us less than $1.00
4. Consider the feelings/positions of the stakeholders
5. Use a professional and diplomatic approach
6. Act in accordance with the policies and procedures of the company
7. Set a standard for current and future employees who may be tempted to engage in
misconduct.
Part IV: Brainstorming
After developing the criteria that was important in a solution for Group B, Group B began to
brainstorm possible solutions. The following solutions were thrown out in rapid fire sequence
by all group members and written down to later be evaluated at length:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Termination
Probation
Written notice
Repayment
Stone them to death
Promote them
Burry them up to their necks in the desert
Promotion
Demotion

10.
11.
12.
13.

Give them a raise so they wont need the extra income

Transfer
Give them a puppy
Allow everyone to sell discounted products to make it fair

Part V: Organizing and Evaluating

A.

List of Solutions: Group B used the solutions from the brainstorming session and combined
similar solutions to create a list of six solutions to further analyze using the criteria developed
in Step III.
1. Transfer/Demotion
2. Termination
3. Probation/Written Warning/Repayment of Discount
4. Death
5. Reward
6. Open up selling of products as an option to all employees to make it fair

B. Chart: Group B then created a chart (Appendix 2) to rate the solutions on how they each met
the criteria. With the solutions listed along the top and the criteria listed on the side, Group B
assigned points on a scale of 1-5 to each solution for how well it met each criteria.
C. Final Solution: After evaluating the solutions on the chart, solution 2 (termination) received
the highest score. Group B then discussed each solution again to ensure that every detail had
been considered.
After much discussion Group B concluded that termination was the best solution for this
situation. Termination is the best solution because it encompasses all of the criteria
developed in Step III. For Group B the most important aspects of a good solution were that it
acts according to the companys policies and procedures and sets an example for other
employees who may be tempted to engage in similar misconduct.
The employees involved in this misconduct signed a contract upon hiring that clearly
expressed the companys expectations regarding the reselling of products. The employees
were fully aware of what the expectations were and agreed to abide by the rules of the
company as a condition of their employment. By violating this contract they knew that they
could be subject to termination.
To take a softer approach to this issue could set an example of company weakness to other
employees. The employee contract clearly states the rules and consequences and it is
important for the company to enforce strict adherence to the rules by terminating the
employees according to the companys policy. This company employs several people and
numerous resources to watch for and catch any reselling of products or knock offs to
strengthen and protect their brand and the products they are selling. Group B concluded that

anything less than termination would counteract these measures and negatively impact the
company overall.
D. Negative Consequences: After choosing a solution Group B re-evaluated the chosen
solution and discussed any potential negative consequences of the solution. While
termination may result in negative effects such as a minor drop in productivity, cost of time
and resources to train new employees, and could appear harsh to other employees, Group B
concluded that the benefits outweigh the negative consequences. Termination will save the
company more money in the long run by ending the misconduct, setting an example for other
employees, and avoiding any potential legal issues that could arise from the reselling of their
products. It also protects their brand and relationship with their manufacturers.
Part VI: Solution Implementation
Because Group Bs own team member, Todd Anderson, is the manager in this scenario, Group B
discussed with him the steps he should take to implement the solution.
1. Gather evidence to support the claim that the employees are engaging in misconduct. This
would include consulting with the brand security team that caught the misconduct and tracked
it back to these particular employees.
2. Consult with the companys HR representatives to review the company policy and initiate the
steps for terminating the employees.
3. Meet with each employee separately according to company guidelines to confront them with
the evidence against them and notify them of the termination their employment with the
company.
4. Complete any ending termination paperwork and follow up with HR representatives on
completing final steps.
5. Follow up with other department members to review the plan for the team going forward and
review the guidelines of the employee contract.

Conclusion

After careful analysis, following the steps of the reflective thinking sequence,
Group B felt that the employees were fully aware of the expectations of the
company as well as the consequences and made a conscious decision to
disregard the rules. Ultimately, Group B decided that terminating the
employees would be the most effective solution. Although termination did
not receive the highest score on the analysis chart (Appendix 2), Group Bs
logical analysis dictated that termination best fit the most important criteria,
and would be successful in deterring this type of misconduct from other
employees.

Group Bs recommendation, through multiple problem-solving meetings

involving significant discussion and strategic thinking, would set a standard
for current and future employees, act in agreement with the companys
policies and procedures and be, overall, the sensible solution for all involved.

Works Cited

Adler, R., Elmhorst, J., & Lucas, K. (2013). Comm 1010 Salt Lake Community College
(11th ed.). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Bigelow, L. (n.d.). What Happens to an Employee if He Violated the Code of
Conduct? Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/happensemployee-violated-code-conduct-16118.html

Bonny, M. (2005, April 15). Kohl's fired 3 employees for violating store's policy.
Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Aamodt (5th)/Case
Study Articles/Case Study 7 - Kohls1.pdf
Discount Abuse. (2008). Retrieved July 23, 2015, from
http://www.lpinnovations.com/page/93-discount_abuse_violations_or_theft/
Gore, A. (2013, February 11). Don't do it! Nike salesman sacked from his job for
trying to sell old company-issue trainers on Facebook. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276941/Dont-Nike-salesman-sacked-jobtrying-sell-old-company-issue-trainers-Facebook.html
L.L.Bean Careers - Employee Discount Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2015, from
https://llbeancareers.com/employeediscount.htm

Appendix 1: Group B Team Contract

Class: COMM 1010-407
Semester: Summer 2015
Date Created: July 1, 2015
Team Members/Contact Information
Anderson, Todd 801-694-4061 xnsrx@yahoo.com
Fredrickson, Michelle
Smith, Jared 385-222-5306 jksthecsm@gmail.com
Thorley, Elizabeth 801-440-1125 e.thorley88@gmail.com

Team Norms
Relational Norms:
-Honor your commitments
-Dont interrupt when someone is speaking
-Dont discount other peoples ideas

Task Norms:
-Notify the group at least 1 day in advance if you are unable to attend a meeting
-Speak up if you cannot complete your task as assigned
-Take ownership of you assigned task
- Reach out to the group if you need help or have questions

Team Member Roles

Relational Roles:
-Participation Encouragers: Jared Smith & Liz Thorley
-Harmonizers: Todd Anderson & Michelle Fredrickson
-Tension relievers: Alexis Rio & Todd Anderson
-Evaluators of emotional climate: Liz Thorley & Michelle Fredrickson
-Praise givers: Jared Smith & Alexis Rio
Task Roles:
-Information/opinion givers: EVERYONE
-Information/opinion seekers: EVERYONE

-Starters: Todd Anderson, Jared Smith, & Liz Thorley

-Direction givers: Michelle Fredrickson & Alexis Rio
-Reality Tester: Liz Thorley
-Leaders: Rotational

Appendix 2: Solution Analysis Chart

This chart, referenced in Part V, shows the evaluation of each solution in comparison
to each criterion.

Solution Analysis Based On Criteria

Criterion
1
Criterion
2
Criterion
3
Criterion
4
Criterion
5
Criterion
6
Criterion
7
TOTAL

Transfer/
Demotio
n

Terminat
ion

Death

Reward

Open To
All

Probatio
n/ Write
Up/
Repayme
nt
4

30

31

32

13

10

15

Appendix 3: Group B Member Participation Points

As a final step in completing this project, Group B assigned participation points to

each group member.
1. Thorley, Elizabeth 14 Points
Liz was the main person who to charge of the meetings and kept everyone on
track. She submitted all of the meeting notes for the group. Liz completed the
methods section and appendices and compiled the final project. She was
prepared and on time to every meeting.
2. Smith, Jared 12 Points
Jared was on time and prepared for every meeting. He contributed to the
discussions and had excellent ideas. He was quick to respond to group emails
and completed the Executive Summary and Works Cited page for the final
project.
3. Anderson, Todd 12 Points
Todd contributed the main idea for the project and contributed in the group
discussions. He was prepared and on time to every meeting. Todd was took
charge of sending meeting reminders and completed the Table of Contents
and Project Description for the final project.
4. Fredrickson, Michelle 12 Points
Michelle showed significant interest in our group. Although she missed one
meeting she immediately notified the group that she would be unable to

attend and quickly made up for it in her contributions to group discussions.

Michelle brought thoughtful and creative ideas to the group and was quick to
respond to questions. She was always on time and prepared. Michelle
completed the Title Page and Conclusion for the final project.
5. Alexis Rio 0 Points
Alexis did not attend any of the meetings. Although she commented in one
group notification online, she made no other effort to contribute to the group
or project.