MLDR 6010 Week 7 Difficult Conduct Case Analysis Example

A Productive Surgeon Technicians Keep Leaving: Pricing Four Responses for Every Affected Party at a Veterinary Clinic, Choosing One and Saying Openly Who Pays for That Choice

Student Name

Walden University

MLDR 6010: Managing People and Promoting

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

A Productive Surgeon Technicians Keep Leaving: Pricing Four Responses for Every Affected Party at a Veterinary Clinic, Choosing One and Saying Openly Who Pays for That Choice

The Facts, in Neutral Order

Over the last twelve months, three technicians have resigned from our Westerville clinic. Two of the three exit forms name the same veterinarian, Dr. Haines, and the third mentions "the surgery days" without a name. Dr. Haines performs about 45 percent of the clinic's surgical procedures by count and is the only veterinarian at the clinic who performs orthopedic repairs, which bring in a meaningful share of surgical revenue. He has been with the chain for eleven years. His personnel file holds no written warning or conduct complaint.

What Has Been Reported and What I Have Seen

Reports and my own observations are kept apart. Andrea, the new lead technician, told me in her second week that technicians avoid being assigned to Dr. Haines's surgery days, that he has raised his voice at technicians in the surgery suite, and that one technician cried in the break room after a case in December. These are reports; I have not verified them with the people involved. What I have personally observed is narrower: on two occasions in the past quarter, I heard Dr. Haines shout at a technician during a procedure, once about an instrument handed in the wrong order and once about a monitoring alarm. Both times the technician was doing what the clinic's protocols require. The distinction matters because the chosen response will be read by Dr. Haines, who is entitled to know which claims are established and which are not.

Four Responses

The first response is written conduct expectations with coaching: a meeting with Dr. Haines, a written statement of the conduct the clinic expects in the surgery suite, monthly coaching with me for three months and a review. The second is relocation: moving his surgery days to a sister clinic with a larger surgical team. The third is formal referral: sending the matter to the chain's conduct process, which begins an investigation by regional HR. The fourth is no action beyond monitoring.

Cost Table

Filling every cell made one party visible that I had not thought about: the technicians at the sister clinic, who would inherit Dr. Haines under the relocation option. Relocation looked kind to Westerville's team until that row was written.

Table 1

Cost of Each Response to Each Affected Party

Composite clinic. Each cell is a short judgment, not a measured cost.

Right Versus Right

The table leaves two defensible responses in tension. Formal referral treats the technicians' reports with the seriousness they may deserve and protects the clinic if the reports prove accurate. Conduct expectations with coaching treat Dr. Haines fairly, since he has never been warned, and act on what I have observed rather than on what I have heard. Badaracco (1997) describes such moments as choices between right and right, in which a manager's decision both reveals and shapes her values. Porath and Pearson (2012) found that people exposed to incivility at work report reduced effort, time lost worrying about it and in some cases leaving, which suggests that the cost to technicians is real even if no single incident meets a formal threshold. Andersson and Pearson (1999) described how incivility can spiral when it goes unaddressed, which argues against waiting.

The Chosen Response

I choose written conduct expectations with coaching, combined with a step the original option lacked: I will interview the three technicians named or implied in the exit forms and the reports, so that the record distinguishes verified events from rumors before the ninety-day review. This response acts on what I have seen, gives Dr. Haines a clear standard he has never received in writing and keeps his surgical work at the clinic.

Dr. Haines will hear that I have twice seen him shout at a technician who was following protocol, that this conduct must stop and that the expectation will be put in writing. He will hear what the coaching involves and that a review follows in ninety days. He will not hear the content of unverified reports.

The technicians will hear, through Andrea and directly from me at a team meeting, that the clinic is acting on surgery-suite conduct, without details of a personnel matter, and that they can report future incidents to me or to regional HR without going through the veterinarian.

The cost of this choice falls mainly on the technicians, who continue to work with Dr. Haines during the coaching period, and on me, since the coaching takes my time and may fail. I accept that cost openly rather than pretending the choice is free.

What Would Reverse This Choice

If the interviews verify conduct more serious than shouting, such as threats or targeting a particular technician, I will refer the matter to the formal conduct process immediately. If another technician resigns and names Dr. Haines during the coaching period, or if I observe a further incident, the same applies.

References

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131

Badaracco, J. L. (1997). Defining moments: When managers must choose between right and right. Harvard Business School Press.

Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2012). Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility and the impact of hierarchical status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(S1), E326-E357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01020.x