Demonstrations of Temper That Impact Work Performance - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: WORKPLACE VIOLENCE Demonstrations of temper that impact work performance and general well-being within the hospital workplace Class University Demonstrations of temper that impact work performance and general well-being within the hospital workplace Background Dr. X was observed in the OR throwing a medical instrument under the terms of his anger. This action is a representation of a violent action that was predicated by abusive language in the form of profanity and displays of anger. Other members of the surgical team, primarily the scrub tech, was observably upset by the actions and lack of restraint shown by Dr. X in regard to his emotional state. Upon approaching the Director in regard to this behavior, it was revealed that this form of violence was common for Dr. X and the hospital has been allowing the behavior to continue without intervention. The Director made the comment “Oh, that is common behavior for Dr. X. We just ignore it and Dr. X will forget all about it by tomorrow”, which indicates that the issue is centered on how Dr. X feels about the event rather than on how the rest of the staff is affected by his actions. Purpose The purpose of this report is to explore the ways in which this type of incident can be avoided in the future, both in direct relation to Dr. X and in relation to the behaviors and reactions of the entire staff. Guidelines about what is and what is not permitted where behavior and emotions are concerned will help to outline how this type of incident can be avoided in the future. In discovering further relatable information to this incident and applying it to the avoidance of future incidents, staff members and patients will be protected and a suitable work environment will be maintained. Since this behavior has been ignored and thus, allowed up to the present, the way in which the staff functions in response to this kind of behavior must be adjusted by shifting the work culture that has developed. Major Findings and Implications The event in question has the potential for a cascade of effects that can be seen in relationship to both staff, patient care, and the patients themselves. When anger is released in an uncontrolled manner, the effect is unpredictable, thus creating an unstable situation. The staff is affected by the impact of that unpredictability and has no stable ground on which to determine the appropriate procedures from which to continue working. As well, the intended target of the anger is left emotionally affected, thus their work can be undermined. The care of the patient is then compromised due to the shift in focus from the medical situation to self-protection in an environment that has become hostile. This puts the patient in harms way as their care is compromised and the outcome of their care is put into jeopardy. Additionally, the event of a medical instrument being thrown across a room has the potential of creating damage or injury, thus creating the potential for legal liability. The potential costs of a hostile work environment are relevant on many levels. The first potential cost can be financially crippling as litigation from an employee who has experienced an inappropriate event or series of events can sue the hospital for having had no prevention, response, or intercession between the employee and the doctor who has behaved in this manner. A hostile workplace can be defined as “Conduct that has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment” (Colaprete, 2007, p. 182). From the result of Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc, the decision that was made by the Supreme Court extended responsibility for actions that do not necessarily create psychological injury, but also to those events that are “severe or pervasive (enough) to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive work environment” (Colaprete, 2007, p. 182). It would be reasonable to assess the event in question as having the potential for legally liabilities, thus putting the hospital under economic threat. As the Director has indicated that these events are ‘ignored’, the employees who must suffer through these events are given no official support in ending this type of behavior within the hospital, suggesting that outside litigation might be the only possible recourse for ending a hostile situation. Another cost can be appreciated as the employee has had an event that has interfered with his or her ability to effectively perform their duties. As harassment has been defined for the potential of interfering with an employees ability to perform, the hospital loses the full capacity of performance when an employee is placed in the position of being harassed. As there is no response from the hospital towards the doctor in question, the employee is left powerless to control the effectiveness with which he or she performs his or her duties. This will effect the staff members and the level of patient care. The apathy that the Director displayed during the initial discussion about the event is disconcerting, suggesting a protective environment for such behaviors. This type of dismissal can no longer be tolerated as it creates an ineffective relationship with the staff. If the staff cannot depend on administrative help when these types of events occur, they are left vulnerable to the effects of the ongoing problem, thus leaving the hospital liable for the potential outcomes of such events. Werre (2004) discusses the reasons for high turn over and patterns of troubles within the workplace. One of the issues that creates patterns of chronic dissatisfaction and staff vacating their positions is based upon the abuse of power. Overworked employees do not leave their positions nearly as often as those who feel that supervisors and those in power are abusing that power. The authority of the doctor as it is abused in combination with the apathy of the Director suggests a troubled work culture in which lower level staff members are vulnerable to abuse with no recourse for action. Corrective Actions A meeting must be called between appropriate administrative personnel in order to fully assess the situation. The first action after the close of the meeting must be to review and assess the current hospital policies on workplace violence and especially to address the definitions of harassment and how to determine the nature of a threatening atmosphere. If appropriate guidelines do not exist they must be created in order to protect hospital staff from inappropriate and potentially damaging behaviors that diminish the effectiveness of care within the hospital. At this point, once a clear policy has been put into place, Doctor X must be confronted with the policy and with reports of his poor behaviors. The hospital work culture must also be shifted to take such events seriously with specific guidelines put into place that provides a chronology of actions taken by management to end these types of behaviors. Organizational transformation must occur in order to better address the dysfunctions within the work culture. Resistance is common when trying to effect change. According to Allcorn (2005), “resistance to knowing and understanding represents an effort not only to hang on to what is familiar, but also to avoid the threats implicit in creating organizational change” (p. 197). Therefore, it is important to present this new policy through effective communication with staff and with a consensus by administration of the importance of such a change. An educational program must be put into place that informs the staff on the appropriate steps for ending this type of behavior. Reporting all cases of such behavior must become mandatory in order to effectively end this type of interference in conducting patient care. Definition of Work Place Violence In order to address the specific incident and to then put into place new guidelines, a clear definition of work place violence must be established. According to the ASIS International (American Society for Industrial Security) guidelines on workplace violence “Any definition of workplace violence must be broad enough to encompass the full range of behaviors that can cause injury, damage property, impede the normal course of work, or make workers, managers, and customers fear for their safety” (Purpura, 2008, p. 492). In order to create a working definition of workplace violence, the nature of hostile words, actions and intent that impact other members of the work process must be assessed. ASIS International specifically defines workplace violence as “a broad range of behaviors falling along a spectrum that, due to their nature and/or severity, significantly affect the workplace, generate a concern for personal safety, or result in physical injury or death” (Purpura, 2008, p. 492). The three criteria under which Purpura (2008) further defines workplace violence are “disruptive and emotionally abusive behavior that creates anxiety and adversely affects the working environment”, “words or actions that are intimidating, frightening or threatening and create a concern for personal safety” and “violent behavior” (p. 492). To simply define violence as it may occur in the workplace, the nature of concept of threat is the core of that definition. When workers or customers (or in this case patients), feel the effects of threat, workplace violence has been constituted. There are five ways in which to classify and define workplace violence: “legal description… motive…degree of harm…time…place of harm…targets” (Van & Van, 2010, p. 40-41). Through these five classifications, the nature of workplace violence can be shaped as it relates to both the intent and the location of events and how they relate to the workplace environment. In order to specifically define the relationships that are involved in the event of violence, four criteria are designated: “no relationship…customer/client/patient relationship…both are members of the organization…personal relationship but only one is a member of the organization (Van & Van, 2010, p. 41). The legal relevance of an act of violence in the workplace will be defined by several criteria. A criminally liable act of violence will involve “a criminal act or coercive behavior” (Van & Van, 2010, p. 41). Civil liabilities are less narrowly defined and an employer may find themselves liable for violent behaviors through litigation when not properly prepared for this type of event. As violence within the workplace also includes behaviors that are considered harassment, civil responsibility has a broader base of possible outcomes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 created an outline for how to frame unlawful harassment. Unlawful harassment is seen as “unwelcome verbal or physical conduct” as it relates to “race, color, religion, sex, (whether or not of a sexual nature and including same-gender harassment and gender-identity harassment), national origin, age (forty and over), disability (mental or physical), sexual orientation, or retaliation (sometimes collectively referred to as “legally protected characteristic” (Johnson, 2008, p. 13). These acts constitute workplace violence through the effect of threat when they create a hostile workplace. As addressed by Title VII, they are sources of civil liability for a company, as well as disruptive to the overall work environment. Intervention Intervention with Dr. X must occur through cooperation of the Director and with the upper management team. Cooperation with all administrative leaders is essential in addressing the inappropriate behavior of Dr. X. As the Director has insinuated that this has been an ongoing problem, it is necessary to first gather as many reports as possible before confronting the doctor about his behavior. Addressing the incident through a review of hospital guidelines on workplace violence will hopefully be enough to end this type of behavior from the doctor while he is working within the hospital. The hospital will offer the doctor any help that he might need through anger management resources if outside intervention in modifying his behavior is necessary. Appropriate consequences must be considered before the intervention meeting in order to motivate the doctor to handle his emotions on a more professional level. Without a clear plan for this intervention, the effectiveness will be diminished, leaving the reporting employees vulnerable to retaliatory consequences. Monitoring the Progress The new guidelines will be assigned and an overview schedule established so that the event in question can be addressed in a timely manner. As the case is built to review the behavior of Dr. X, further events will be monitored closely by administrative personnel. Once the intervention has occurred, recordings of the events in the OR with future surgeries performed by Dr. X will be given to the Director or other appropriate administrator assigned to monitor this situation in order to assess for any continuation of this type of behavior. Should this type of behavior continue, appropriate actions must be taken by the hospital in order to prevent more public and damaging outcomes from outbursts that include violent use of verbal abuse and physical actions. As the event of the thrown instrument constitutes a violent outburst under the definition of a physical threat, the danger for patient or staff injury, combined with the criminally legal obligation that might ensue makes this event of high importance in protecting both staff and patients, and the integrity of the hospital. In addition to monitoring the behavior of Dr. X., it will become necessary to monitor the overall nature of the work culture. Without appropriate changes, these types of events will continue to occur, creating a potential vulnerability within the hospital that will leave it open to litigation and ineffective patient care. The integrity of the hospital is at stake as the events of workplace violence impact the nature of care available. In addition, a work culture that ignores these types of events promotes a system that does not monitor its own failings, thus perpetuating potentially harmful situations. Through new guidelines, open door policies, and reporting systems that protect staff members as well as inform administration, a safer hospital will be the result. References Allcorn, S. (2005). Organizational dynamics and intervention: Tools for changing the workplace. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Colaprete, F. A. (2007). Internal investigations: A practitioner's approach. Springfield, Ill: Charles C Thomas, Publisher. Johnson, K. L. (2008). Skirt! rules for the workplace: An irreverent guide to advancing your career. Guilford, Conn: Skirt!. Purpura, P. P. (2008). Security and loss prevention: An introduction. Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Van, F. D. D., & Van, F. E. W. (2010). The violence volcano: Reducing the threat of workplace violence. Charlotte, NC: IAP, Information Age Pub. Were, R. (2004). I love my work…I hate my job. Lincoln, NE: IUniverse. Read More