A day in the life of Alex Sander Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

A day in the life of Alex Sander - Case Study Example ndon, the 360-degree feedback is used as a confidential and anonymous system where the employees receive the feedback from the people who works with them. The people who provide the feedback at Landon consists of the employees in the downward hierarchy, the upward hierarchy and the peer groups and also the outsiders directly involved with the activities at Landon. From the sample of feedback form in the case, it seems that around ten to twelve people are embraced in the entire process of feedback. Every person providing the feedback is required to fill up an anonymous feedback form that involves a number of areas in the competencies at workplace. The anonymous form asks the participants to put their views on the form according to certain rated areas. The areas are the greatest strengths of the employees and those that require further developments in the workplace. The participants are also asked to cite examples of instances that can provide evidence to their comments. The person who receives feedback from the people in the organization is also needed to fill a self-rating form where the rating areas remain the same as that of others. The completely filled feedback forms are handed over to the employees and after the employees go through the form once, they are asked to meet their boss for counseling. 1.2 Mode of Using the 360-Degree Feedback The appraisal system of 360-degree feedback should be primarily used by the companies for fulfilling the following objectives: 1.2.1 Help Employees to Become More Effective The 360-degree feedback should be used as a tool of development for helping the employees in recognizing their strengths and weaknesses so that they can focus more on the strengths and reduce or remove the weaknesses for becoming more effective in achieving their assigned goals. If the appraisal can be done properly, it acts as a highly effective tool for development, both for the employees as well as for the companies as a whole. The process should be used in a way that provides the people an opportunity for citing feedback to the performance of their co-workers. The recipients of the feedback should be accordingly provided proper motivation so that they can excel in their jobs. 1.2.2 Measure Employee Performance The appraisal format should focus more on the competencies and behaviors of the employees rather than on the basic skills, objectives of performance and requirements of the job. This approach should be followed because these attributes of the employees are best observed and addressed by peers and managers as a part of the performance review and appraisal process annually. It is possible through the technique to review the management performance more appropriately. The 360-degree appraisal system should be used with proper and clear communication of the entire process to the employees. Solution to the Question No: 2 2.1 Behaviors of Alex that had Greater Impact on the Data of 360-Degree The people who are working under th e supervision of Alex Sander perceived his nature differently. This is because of the fact that Alex was dedicated towards his works and had consistently shown aggression in every job that he performed. But according to his peers, upward colleagues and downward colleagues, at certain times, his dedication takes the form of violence and this is the reason that Alex has received

Paradoxes of Whistle-blowing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Paradoxes of Whistle-blowing - Essay Example Third, the act is required, whether or not it is moral to do so or not. The act needs to be performed because of a rational non-moral reason. In this context, whistle-blowing is morally problematic because there is confusion on whether whistle-blowing should be something morally permissible, morally required or at the other extreme morally wrong. Whistle-blowing involves revealing information that ordinarily, would not be revealed, because one is entrusted with that information. By this definition, the police officer, the criminal informant or the clerk who happens upon evidence of wrongdoing in another department, are not whistle-blowers because they have not been entrusted with the information, even if they were while working under false pretences. According to the standard theory, whistle-blowing is permissible when an organization's product or policy is harmful to the public; when the prospective whistle-blower has identified the harm, reported such to a superior, and the superior does nothing about it; the prospective whistle-blower has done everything possible within the organization to call attention to the identified harm. Additionally, according to the standard theory, whistle-blowing is required when the prospective whistle-blower has evidence that will convince an impartial observer that the threat to public safety is correct; and when the prospective whistle-blower is convinced that revealing the threat will be able to prevent harm at reasonable cost. Generally speaking, there appears to be nothing wrong with the standard theory, except S1 which places the burden of identification of the gravity of the threat is the judgment of the whistle-blower, as well as S5, which again puts the burden of judgment regarding reasonable cost on the shoulders of the whistle-blower.. 3. Explain the three paradoxes that Davis claims the standard theory gives rise to. If you were a defender of the standard theory, how might you respond to Davis' arguments According to Davis, the first paradox that has arisen from the standard theory is the paradox of burden. The standard theory presupposes that whistle-blowers are minimally decent individuals who blow the whistle after complying with five justifications. Actually, whistle-blowers are exemplary individuals who risk financial security and personal relations for the good of the public. The second paradox is the paradox of missing harm. According to the standard theory, the harm that justifies whistle-blowing needs to be serious and considerable in magnitude. Injustice, deception and waste are not justifications for whistle-blowing under the standard theory. The third paradox is the paradox of failure. The standard theory requires that one of the justifications for whistle-blowing is the prevention of harm. Paradoxically, if harm cannot be prevented by whistle-blowing, then it is not justified. In defense of the standard theory, the paradox of burden is the natural result for the whistle-blower. The standard theory works on the premise that organizations, unless those which are criminal, would not deliberately seek to produce harmful products for the general public. So only in extreme cases would there be a need for whistle-blowers. Relaxing the rules would only encourage unfounded complaints and back-stabbing