Managing high-performance ip

Managing High Performance IP Managing High Performance IP The CEO’s consideration is that a mandatory drug testing for all new and existing employees should be carried out and put in the upcoming negotiation. This is despite the opposition of the union leadership in the pre-negotiation discussions, because, it is for the advantage of the company if the drug testing is carried out. However, the CEO should go through the several steps of company paid cessation seminars to be enlightened on the importance of the test being carried out. This will provide actual report since the supervisors are not sure of the existence of the problem in all departments (Ward, 2003). The drug testing activity should be carried out in a systematic way to avoid the cause of commotion amongst workers who do not use drugs.
The reasons why the workers even though tested positive need to go through several steps of the company, paid treatment and company paid seminars is to ensure that the union’s demands are met, and this being among it is illegal to assume it. The reasons for my recommendation are through the use of the criteria, which should dominate the decision-making process: the good for a long-term future, the rights of individuals affected right now, or the cost to the company (Wart, 2011). Therefore, in this case, the good of the long-term future and the cost of the company dominated the decision-making. This evident from the fact that if the drug test is carried out there will be a long term effect since the problems occurring due to the use of drugs will stop, and the companys profit making will be boosted maintaining the cost of the company. However, on the other hand, the individual’s rights are considered because they will go through the necessary steps of company paid treatment (Wiley, 2010).
The fact that the CEO is convinced that several of the serious plant accidents had some under-the-influence element as their cause, and I agree with him. Whether it is true or not, the company did incur expensive worker’s compensation settlements, in one case because of an amputation on a piece of machinery should be not be included as an issue of concern in the upcoming negotiation. The criteria of my recommendations are “whether this a onetime individual issue, or is the decision, in a way, establishing some new policy?” The compensation that was incurred by the company in one case because of and a piece of amputation on a piece of machinery was a onetime individual thing. The decision not to make it an issue in the upcoming negotiation is, so that the matter is first looked at in depth to avoid making decisions that could affect the company negatively (Zaccaro, 2007). I also used the criteria, if there is any precedent in the company that could not only serve as a guide, but must be considered to avoid reinvention of the wheel. Importantly, can the firm be charged with discrimination if employees do not treat a person X in this situation the same as a person Y in the precedent situation? This criterion helps one in analyzing if the serious plant accidents if discussed in the upcoming negotiation will prevent more of such accidents, and on realizing that it could be true or not true, the conclusion that it should not be included comes up (Hutson, 2005).
References
Hutson, B. (2005). Leadership in nonprofit organizations. Chicago: Sage.
Ward, A. (2003). The Leadership Lifecycle: Matching Leaders to Evolving Organizations.
United States: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wart, M. (2011). Dynamics of Leadership in Public Service. United States: M.E Sharpe.
Wiley, J. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Zaccaro, S. (2007). The Nature of Organizational Leadership. London: Prentice House.