Ways of Screening Employees for Security and Loyalty

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Theoretical issues identified
Analysis of article in light of learning
Identified gaps
Conceptual differences and similarities when applied to context
Summary
References

Introduction

Tris Coffin wrote the article in 1995. He wanted to address one of the industry’s goals, which is to conduct an employee loyalty check. The government realized that there was a recurring problem in the American business world. This problem was finding an efficient employee loyalty and security check.

The security system had improved over some years and the loyalty check recorded that one out of every 10 adult Americans are loyal. This number included persons from all fields including schools, the armed forces, government, industry and the business world (Coffin, 1955).

The persons employed in industries or organizations that are involved in producing secret machines and weapons (defense contract) were constantly checked for loyalty and security.

This involved checking for their sobriety, inquiring about their beliefs in politics and other related issues. These checks had also been used in various other fields including the private businesses including the breweries, distilling plants, pharmaceuticals and the automobile industries.

The security system was initiated after the government understood that a group of federal employees was threatening to overthrow the government. The FBI was used to investigate on the issue.

These services extended to other military contracted companies where the military intelligence and FBI were used. Four years after initiation, four thousand loyalty complaints had been recorded. However, one thousand three hundred of the cases were disregarded since they were said to be baseless.

The pentagon provided certain standards that the staff had to attain. Attempts of espionage and sabotage were condemned. Standards against treason and sedition also existed. The defense production personnel were not expected to advocate for violence and force in order to attempt to change the government’s constitution.

Those who were suffering from emotional and mental instability were regarded as habitual offenders. They were not thought to posses the integrity and responsibility necessary for the security of classified information. The Chief Justice was worried about the security system since it disregarded some human rights.

Theoretical issues identified

It can be seen that the need for security of the American industry, businesses and government, a security system was developed. According to some observations, this system had no regard for the Bill of Rights. Despite being the world’s strongest nation, America was demanding for more strength and security from itself.

This sacrificed the citizens’ ancient liberties. Chief Justice Warren suggested that the temptation to imitate the totalitarian security methodologies should be resisted as much as possible. This was because it would not fade away.

The Industry Advisory Committee on Security was tasked with the role of researching on some of the issues faced as a result of the current security system and to provide tangible results, conclude and criticize the system. The committee was also to propose some changes that should be implemented in the future industrial security. The committee came up with several conclusions.

For example, one of the conclusions touched on an aspect of the human rights. They proposed that the employees holding jobs in the defense industry had important property rights. They are entitled to all considerations towards retaining that right. The public, industry and the labor industry criticized the present method of ensuring security.

They argued that there were points of weakness. However, Dickerman was quick to react to this by claiming that such accusations were irresponsible. He was a corporation lawyer and a former general counsel in the commerce department. He argued that those comments were made by employees who did not understand what communism was.

Due to the effects of the security system on the public’s attitudes and perceptions, the public have tended to believe that a security risk implies an act of espionage or communism. In this case, and individual who is considered a security risk is treated as an outcast.

However, observations made by Joseph Amann pointed out disparities in this misconception. He argued that most of the issues regarded as security risks were actually not security threats (neither subversive nor disloyal). He suggested that they were only normal human weaknesses such as being boastful or having the tendency of talking too much. This means that the judgment was very unfair and unnecessary.

Most of the leading aviation companies did not take cases of security threats lightly. Individuals who were suspected of being security risks were discharged immediately. The Republic Aviation Security Director of the time bluntly told associates that firing the employees was the answer to the security issue.

This attitude was common in many such industries. This was a great concern because many of the potential and useful engineers and scientists feared working. This is because they feared being rated as security risks.

This security system also implicated some costs that were regarded as excessive. This cost or financial loss may apply when a person who has had his or her security clearance revoked appeals (Coffin, 1955). The cost of making an appeal at the time exceeded as much as $3000.

This cost was not recoverable even if the individual won reinstatement after an appeal. The Industry Advisory Committee on Security argued that this amount could be reduced through the use of a more efficient system.

The security system also placed many companies at risk of being charged of unfair labor practices. This could apply as the companies try to comply with the security regulations.

They could also be charged for not being in sympathy with the basic civil liberties. Some companies argued that they were supposed to be compensated by the government in the event that they suffered loss after being charged for such cases and other related charges such as suits for libel.

The jobs of the defense workers were not secure since they could lose their jobs easily. They were prone to multiple jeopardy and a security clearance could be reviewed at any moment. This could have led to the worker being revoked. Therefore, security of tenure was not guaranteed.

Analysis of article in light of learning

According to the article, there are various aspects in the management of the industries, businesses and government bodies that work against employee loyalty. Some of the issues that have been identified include issues to do with lack of employee trust and lack of security of tenure.

The working environment has also been determined to be not conducive for working. These are among the things that are required for the success of an organization.

The loyalty and security checks instill a lack of trust in the employees and this is likely to affect the performance of the employees (Jukka, Anna-Maija, & Lipsanen, 2012). Those workers who feel a trusted have a greater sense of responsibility. They also give better performance at the workplace.

Research has suggested that those employees who feel trusted are more likely to rise to the expectation of the manager (Salamon & Robinson, 2008). They have been determined to perform better when it comes to sales and customer service.

According to Salamon and Robinson (2008), there was a difference between employee’s trust in the management system and the feeling by employees that they were trusted by management. Elements in the work design were studied. These elements included surveillance and training.

These shaped the perceptions of the employees concerning being trusted by the managers. According to the study, the behaviors and decisions of the managers significantly influenced the perceptions.

The authors suggested that it was important for the managers to communicate trust to their employees. They could do this by giving the workers the benefit of the doubt. They could also encourage them to use their own judgment when there is no procedure to follow.

This would invoke to the employee a sense of being trusted. However, in the article, surveillance of the employees was meant to look for loopholes in order to brand them as security risks. This meant that the employees were not trusted and the employees knew this very well.

Some of the potential and qualified personnel avoided being recruited in the organizations because they were too afraid to be branded the name. This would have compromised their future operations since they would be blackballed.

In the article, a lack of security of tenure has been demonstrated as the employees are fired from the workplace without proper reasons. Some of the cases provided show that some individuals who are regarded as security risks have been accused falsely.

This meant that the individuals could easily lose their jobs and be branded as security risks. Upon appealing for a reinstatement, one has to pay through the nose and the amount is nonrefundable even if one wins the reinstatement.

Security of tenure is important in the workplace. This ensures the protection of a person’s job and ensures that the employee does not suffer victimization for performing their duties or functions (Black, 1998).

This ensures that the employee only loses his job in the most extreme cases. Security of tenure ensures that there is no dismissal from work in an unjust manner and those that lose their jobs unfairly are reinstated. As they are reinstated, they lose no seniority rights or other privileges that come with it.

This includes their allowances. This is unlike the situation presented in the article since the individuals may lose their jobs without proper cause. The money lost during the appeal for reinstatement is not refunded either.

The existence of the security of tenure in the workplace also acts as a motivating factor for the employees since they are assured of keeping their jobs as long as they abide by the rules and regulations of the industry or organization. This also ensures that the employees work without fear.

The employees presented in the article have been shown to have great fears in the workplace since they may be dismissed at any time in the event of slight suspicions by management. They would actually lose jobs for mere suspicions and not facts.

The working environment presented in the article was an unhealthy one. This explains why the employees and public complained about the security system. However, the management was quick to dismiss their allegations.

A good working environment is important for the productivity of the workers and the efficiency and productivity of the entire organization. This ensures that the employees feel a sense of well-being and satisfaction at the workplace (Loveman, 1998).

Identified gaps

One of the identified gaps in the article is the need for employee loyalty in the industry. It only talks of a way of screening for their loyalty. In the absence of employee loyalty in the organization, the remedy for the organizations is to dismiss the employees.

The organizations do not realize the importance of employee loyalty to the well-being of the organizations. Some of the activities actually tend to reduce employee loyalty. For example, without the security of tenure, the employees do not feel safe in the workplace. Their employment is not guaranteed. This is because they would easily lose their jobs due to suspicions of being security threats or risks.

Since the individuals are screened and surveillance of their activities conducted, the employees feel that they are not trusted by authority. This does not help improve employee loyalty and those with an option of going to work elsewhere would do this without a second thought.

In the article, it has been noted that some of the qualified engineers and scientists avoided the defense work. This was because of the exaggerated fear of being referred to as a security threat. The employees lacked trust in the management and (at the same time) felt that the management did not trust.

Conceptual differences and similarities when applied to context

One of the similarities between the concepts brought about in the article and those related to readings is that the security of certain aspects of the organization is critical. Certain organizations dealing with the country’s security matters need to keep some information confidential.

When such information is exposed to the public or to other undeserving individuals, this might lead to a breach of internal security. This explains the importance of the screening procedures. The employee loyalty would be vital to ensure this information is kept within the organization.

However, threatening employees is not a way of ensuring their loyalty and guaranteeing the security of confidential information. This is where the differences come. Every employee (even those doing defense work) need to have a sense of pride in the place of work.

They need to be able to derive satisfaction in their work. This can only be realized if they are comfortable enough at the workplace (conducive environment). They need to be certain that they would not lose their job due to unfair reasons (security of tenure). They also need to have trust for the management and feel trusted by the managers. They are not an exception from other employees working in fields not related to security.

Summary

The article by Tris Coffin seeks to find a proper way of screening employees for security and loyalty. The article looks at the security checks performed to employees working in the field of defense but also suggests that the procedures are in use in other fields not related to defense.

The workplace in the industry and businesses is displayed as one that lacks security of tenure and lacks motivation. Despite the need for security and loyalty checks by the management, it is vital to ensure that the employees are motivated through ensuring their security of tenure and ensuring trust in the workplace (Jukka, Anna-Maija, & Lipsanen, 2012).

References

Black, C. (1998). Impeachment: A handbook. London: Yale University Press.

Coffin, T. (1955). Industry goal: Simple employee loyalty check. Nation’s Business, 43(12).

Jukka, S., Anna-Maija, L., & Lipsanen, B. (2012). A trust-focused model of leaders’ fairness enactment. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 20-30.

Loveman, G. (1998). Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty and financial performance. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 18-31.

Salamon, S., & Robinson, S. (2008). Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on organizational performance. Applied Psychology, 93(3), 596-601.

Click Here To Order Now!