People are operating more like free agents than in the past. In short, the balance of power has shifted from employer to employee, forcing business leaders to learn how to build an organization that engages employees as sensitive, passionate, creative contributors. We call this a shift from improving employee engagement to a focus on building an irresistible organization.
However, very few of us have comprehensive policies that protect both the agency and employee in these situations. While most California police agencies have established practices for confidential counseling after critical incidents such as officer involved shootings, many of us do not have consistent practices for the ordering of an evaluation that may lead to the end of a career for the involved employee.
Because we can compel these evaluations to insure the public safety and guarantee a "stable, reliable and productive workforce" Yin v. State of California, 95 F. It would be counterproductive to order the evaluation and face a lawsuit for invasion of privacy or wrongful termination.
The following sample policy is derived from several existing policies throughout the state and incorporates current legal decisions regarding the extent and scope of the evaluations. It is in place in at least two Southern California police departments and has been reviewed and approved by at least one active police labor representation law firm.
City of Modesto, Cal. You should consult your legal advisor prior to implementation. This policy is intended to be an operational policy. It is not intended to be advisory regarding what psychological tests should be administered or the criteria you should use in selecting your evaluator, although it does suggest minimum qualifications.
You should consult your existing providers of psychological services regarding their recommendations, licensing, scope of practice, avoidance of dual relationships and other issues important to the practice of psychology, especially in this highly specialized area of fitness for duty evaluations.
Finally, it is important to stress that a fitness for duty evaluation should not be used as a substitute for discipline or confidential counseling. Nor should it be conducted just to protect the decision maker.
Ordering a fitness for duty evaluation is a serious matter that can have a long lasting effect on both the employee and organization, as well as the public they both serve. Such evaluations are necessary for the safety and welfare of the community and department personnel, and to insure compliance with California law.
California Government Code Section f mandates that all peace officers in California "[b]e found to be free from any physical, emotional or mental condition which might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer.
Rather, this policy is intended to provide a mechanism for the assessment of an employee's mental and emotional ability to perform essential functions of their position when the employee's conduct, behavior and circumstances indicate to a reasonable person that continued service by the employee may be a threat to public safety, the safety of other employees, the safety of the particular employee, or, may interfere with the City's ability to deliver effective police services.
To assist in determining the continuing emotional and mental fitness of Department officers to carry out their essential duties as armed peace officers, and other employees whose duties affect the public safety, all supervisory employees should be alert to any indication that an employee may not be emotionally or mentally fit.
Such indications may include but are not limited to the following factors. The mere presence of any one factor or combination of factors may not be sufficient to order the evaluation.
However, such presence should not be ignored and may lead to the ordering of an evaluation. Any supervisor observing circumstances indicating that the emotional or mental fitness of an employee may be in question should meet with the employee, if to do so will not aggravate the situation. If the meeting does not relieve the supervisor's concerns, or no meeting is conducted, the involved supervisor shall contact his or her division commander and prepare a written report of the circumstances if so directed.
The Division Commander or designee shall advise the Chief of Police of the circumstances. An employee is not required to disclose a disability to a supervisor, however, a supervisor may inquire regarding the conduct, behavior or circumstances that give rise to his or her concerns.
Where appropriate, a supervisor and employee may also discuss reasonable accommodations that may enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her position. In aggravated circumstances, such as when an employee's conduct immediately or directly threatens safety, a supervisor may immediately relieve the employee of duty pending further evaluation.
In other cases, employees may be relieved from duty or reassigned as necessary for public safety or the efficient operation of the department, pending completion of an evaluation.
Any readily accessible or department provided weapons or other department property may be seized by the supervisor and where appropriate, the employee ordered not to exercise peace officer or other official powers.
Nothing in this policy is intended to prevent or limit a supervisor from taking any emergency action reasonably necessary to protect life or property. Order for the Evaluation. The Chief or his designee may determine, in the exercise of his or her discretion and with or without additional investigation, that a fitness for duty evaluation is or is not warranted.
If an examination is warranted, it should be scheduled for the earliest opportunity. The employee should receive a written order for the evaluation.Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization.
These behaviors can harm organizations or people in organizations including employees and clients, customers, or patients. Counterproductive Work Behaviours (CWB) definition Counterproductive work behaviour refers to actions by employees that go against the goals and aims of their employer.
In industrial and organizational psychology, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a person's voluntary commitment within an organization or company that is not part of his or her contractual tasks..
Organizational citizenship behavior has been studied since the late s. Over the past three decades, interest in these behaviors has increased substantially. Counterproductive work behaviour Counterproductive behaviours at the interpersonal conscientiousness.7 Conscientious employees are more likely to be more productive and engage in fewer counterproductive work behaviours than less conscientious employees due to having more.
Workplace wellness is any workplace health promotion activity or organizational policy designed to support healthy behavior in the workplace and to improve health outcomes.
Known as 'corporate wellbeing' outside the US, workplace wellness often comprises activities such as health education, medical screenings, weight management programs, on-site fitness programs or facilities.
Four Seconds: All the Time You Need to Replace Counter-Productive Habits with Ones That Really Work [Peter Bregman] on pfmlures.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Peter Bregman, author of the Wall Street Journal bestseller 18 Minutes, offers strategies to replace energy-wasting.