Disciplinary rules and procedures are necessary for promoting fairness and order in the treatment of individuals and in the conduct of industrial relations. They also assist an organization to operate effectively. Rules set standards of conduct at work; procedure helps to ensure that the standards are adhered to and also provides a fair method of dealing with alleged failures to observe them. Failure by an employee to reach and maintain standards of work may not, in the first instance, be a disciplinary matter.
This work gives practical guidance on how to raw up disciplinary rules and procedures and how to operate them effectively. Its aim is to help employers and trade unions as well as individual employees – both men and women – wherever they are employed regardless of the size of the organization in which they work. In the smaller establishments it may not be practicable to adopt all the detailed provisions, but most of the features listed in the Section entitled ‘Essential Features of Disciplinary Procedures’ could be adopted and incorporated into a simple procedure.
Research Questions The above statements have led to the formulation of the following research questions; 1 . What are the perceived problems that employees have regarding the company’s disciplinary procedure? – Are disciplinary procedures strictly followed and applied by leaders in the organization? 1. 2 Research objectives The main objectives of the research are: – To evaluate employee perceptions about the disciplinary procedures at the case organization. – To analyses the effectiveness of disciplinary action in the business. To analyses weaknesses in the current application of disciplinary action and to recommend appropriate method for improvements. 2. 0 Literature review. Every organization expects satisfactory standards of behavior, conduct ND attendance from all its employees. This paper focuses on exploring the significance, importance and necessity of disciplinary measures in the workplace of today and will address possible future applications. This exploration will occur by critically reviewing empirical and conceptual literature on this subject.
For the purposes of this paper the term “discipline” or “punishment” will be used to denote some action taken against an individual when he fails to conform to the rules of the industrial organization of which he is a member. Organizations, in any context, are made up of groups of people and individuals who are interdependent, and work together to achieve organizational goals and objectives. Therefore, these people interact with one another on a daily basis to fulfill their job-roles and to contribute effectively to their organizations.
However, individuals enter the workplace with their own unique abilities, attitudes, values and perceptions, and this in itself can be a source of conflict in amortization (Robbins, Adenoidal & Rood, 2003). To resolve conflict between individuals and groups, and to ensure ruminations work environment, managers, supervisors and other leaders utilize disciplinary action to prevent escalation ND to maintain industrial peace. In other words, the boarder definition of discipline which incorporates a view on punishment is applied.
The terms ‘discipline’ ‘disciplinary measure’ and ‘punishment’ are used interchangeably throughout the analyses to refer to an event in which a recipient received an oral reprimand, written reprimand, probation, suspension or termination for some action deemed unacceptable by the supervisor or organization (Rave and Evangelic,1 980). When undesirable behavior or actions are noticed in the work place, it is thus the prerogative of leaders and managers to correct his behavior and establish more acceptable norms or standards than those being corrected (Raw, 2009).
Therefore, discipline and its subsequent rules and procedures form an integral part of the employment relationship between employer and employee. But, in order for discipline to be effective and yield its desired results, it needs to be substantially and procedurally fair (Bended, 2005). This means that proper rules and processes needs to be followed in the workplace to ensure that all organizational policies and legislative requirements are being adhered to.
Substantial fairness relates to the reason for embarking on he disciplinary action, the cause for action. There has to be a just and equitable reason for embarking on the disciplinary action, and this needs to comply with the organization’s policies as well as those promulgated in the labor legislation of the country (Veneer & Levy, 2011). Procedural fairness relates to the correct process that needs to be followed during the disciplinary inquiry (Bended, 2010).
This refers to the organization’s internal rules and processes that need to be followed step by step to ensure that employee rights are not being violated, and to protect the business against claims of unfair labor practices and unfair similar When undesirable behavior or actions are noticed in the workplace, it is thus the prerogative of leaders and managers to correct this behavior and establish more acceptable norms or standards than those being corrected (Raw, 2009).
Therefore, discipline and its subsequent rules and procedures form an integral part of the employment relationship between employer and employee. But, in order for discipline to be effective and yield its desired results, it needs to be substantially and procedurally fair (Bended, 2005). The Use of discipline Disciplinary action and procedures are used as a corrective measure in organizations, not to punish the employee, but rather to correct behavior or a current work standard to more appropriate levels (Bended, 2010).
It is thus important to give some form of correction following an unwanted response, in an attempt to help eliminate that behavior or action. If discipline is used as an act of punishment, its results may not be that which is required and may lead to more problems in dealing with that specific individual or employee. This statement is substantiated by the following “The results of punishment are relatively short-lived, and hence punishment only has a temporary effect on teetering unwanted behavior rather than eliminating it totally.
It has also been found that punishment has a more permanent effect if desirable behaviors are rewarded at the same time as punishing the undesirable behaviors” (Daniels, 2006:250). If this is applied in a work setting, for example, it would suggest that regularly punishing an employee who turns up late for work on a continuous basis would be more effective if the individual was also rewarded at the same time if he/she turns up firework on time. There may be a number of reasons why disciplinary action fails when it is used as a punishment Achaeans in the organization.
On reason could be that the action hurts the individual. In this context, it is not a physical pain, but rather more of an emotional/mental pain felt as a result of the employee feeling a bit humiliated of being disciplined. Punishment also has the potential of creating anger and hostility in the work environment (Robin, et al. , 2003). If this aspect is not addressed in the work environment, the working relationships in the business can become very harmful and damaged over a long period of time.
Another issue which is also problematic is that punishment brings with it the effect of eating attention in the workplace. Other employees in the workplace may become aware that one of their colleagues are being disciplined, and this attention is often not the type that employees want to become associated with. When an employee views the disciplinary action in this manner, it often will not be successful. “Using discipline in the organization is a process of both control and power” (Daniels, 2006:251). His suggest that managers villain the organization should take care when affecting disciplinary action on an employee, as the action often carries many consequences with it. The control aspect can be aid to relate to the policies and procedures which management have to operate in to ensure that the disciplinary action yields the correct results for all the parties involved. 2. Disciplinary procedure An organization’s disciplinary procedure outlines the principles, policies and actions which should be followed in certain situations, and it is important that this be in writing and readily accessible and available to all employees.
Gendered and Judge (2005:273) advocate that “it has been the case for a number of years that a disciplinary procedure should be set out as follows; 1. Oral warning 2. Written warning 3. Final written warning, suspension and/or disciplinary probation 4. Termination of employment This policy is not contractual in nature and does not constitute an agreement that any particular procedure or rule will apply. The nature of the offense and the particular circumstances determine whether or not all or any of the steps in the above sequence are followed.
Disciplinary steps may be omitted, accelerated, or repeated as the University determines appropriate. The purpose of disciplinary measures short of termination is corrective ,to encourage employees to improve their conduct or performance so that they may continue their employment with he University. The University expects all employees to behave in a mature and responsible manner and to perform their jobs conscientiously, without the need of disciplinary action.
These corrective disciplinary measures will not apply in the event of any offense that the University undermines to warrant immediate termination of employment or in other circumstances when the University determines that corrective measures would be ineffectual or otherwise inappropriate. Oral Warnings: If an employee is given an oral warning the employee is informed of the warning by his/her manager. The warning is also corded by the manager in writing and the record is placed in the employee’s personnel file.
Written Warnings: If an employee is issued a written warning or a final written warning, the manager will meet with the employee to discuss the disciplinary action and the employee will be asked to sign the warning. The employee’s signature is only an acknowledgment that the employee has been informed of the warning; it does not indicate agreement with the warning. All written warnings are retained in the employee’s file. Disciplinary Probation: An employee may be placed on disciplinary probation for unsatisfactory reference or conduct.
An employee placed on disciplinary probation will be given a written notice of probation, which generally provides an explanation of the reason for the action, the length of the probationary period and a plan of corrective action to be successfully completed during the period. The employee’s manager will meet with the employee to discuss the terms of the disciplinary probation, and the employee will be asked to sign the notice of probation as an acknowledgement that the employee has been informed of the action. A copy of the notice is retained in the employee’s personnel file.
At the conclusion of the arbitration period, and from time to during the period, as appropriate, the employee’s manager will meet with the employee to review his/her progress. Termination of appointment: A disciplinary suspension is a suspension from work without pay for one or more days for a repeated or serious infraction of University rules or policies. A record of the suspension is retained in the employee’s personnel file. 2. 2 Effectiveness of disciplinary action and procedures The effectiveness of disciplinary action depends to a large extent, on the reasons and circumstances for its implementation.
Lewis, Thrilled and Saunders 2003:283) note that discipline is necessary where it is an “action instigated by management against an employee who fails to meet reasonable and legitimate expectations in terms of performance, conduct and adherence to rules”. It can thus be said that an employer is justified in instituting this action as a measure to protect its interests and ensure that an employee carries out the duties expected of himher in terms of the contract of employment.
However, certain rules and processes also have to be followed by both employer and employee to ensure that the action actually yields the desired results for both parties. “It is clear hat the disciplinary procedure is there to protect the employee from unfair and unreasonable treatment, as well as to afford the employer the opportunity of dispensing with the unsatisfactory employee” (Lewis et al. , 2003:301 Long gone are the days where employers could simply dismiss an employee for any reason, proper rules and processes have to be followed in modernized times.
Another aspect which influences the effectiveness of disciplinary action and procedures is the consistency with which these measures are undertaken. This aspect will now be explored in more detail in relation to the discourse. 2. Theoretical Review of Literature The investigation for literature revealed a broad research stream that address the issue of disciplinary measures applied in different work settings, lulu- Alabama science secondary school is provided as a case study in a summary of the literature review.
Application and Scope A . The school expects satisfactory standards of behavior, conduct and attendance from all its employees. The disciplinary procedure provides a framework for dealing with instances where employees are alleged not to have met the required standards of conduct. The aim is to ensure prompt, consistent and fair treatment for all employees and to assist in enabling both he employee and the school to be clear about the expectations of both parties. B.
The procedure applies to all employees employed by the school college under a contract of employment. C. Trade Union Representatives – Where disciplinary action is being considered against an employee who is a trade union representative the normal disciplinary procedure will be followed. Depending on the circumstances, however, and after obtaining the employee’s consent, it is advisable to discuss the matter at an early stage with an official employed by the union.
As this will normally involve contact with the Regional Union Office this ill be dealt with by Human Resources. D. Criminal Offences – If an employee is charged with, or convicted of, a criminal offence (outside of employment) this will not normally in itself be considered a reason for disciplinary action. Consideration will be given to the relevance and effect the charge or conviction has to or on the employee’s suitability to do their job and their relationship with the school, work colleagues, students and customers. 2. 3. General Principles The following principles will apply to the application of this procedure: Informal Resolution – University managers are responsible for addressing conduct and behavior issues as early as possible and for taking appropriate action. Where appropriate, steps will be taken to resolve issues on an informal basis without recourse to the formal procedure. Investigation – Before disciplinary action is taken an investigation shall be undertaken. Where the manager with authority to hear the case considers it appropriate the contents of an investigation undertaken under another procedure (e. . Academic misconduct) may be used as part of this process. Nature of allegations – The employee against whom an allegation has been made shall be advised in writing of the nature of the allegations made against him/her and will be given the opportunity to state his/ her case before any decision is made to take disciplinary action. First breach of discipline -Dismissal will not be a sanction for a first breach of discipline except in the case of gross misconduct.
Suspension – At any stage in the procedure, if appropriate, an employee may be suspended. Suspension is not a penalty and is not an indication of culpability, there is therefore a presumption that suspension will be on full pay. The decision to suspend will be taken by a Senior Managerial consultation with HRS. Right to be accompanied – All employees ho are the subject of this procedure have the right to be accompanied at any formal meeting or disciplinary hearing held under the procedure by a trade union representative or work colleague.
Equality and Diversity – To ensure fair treatment and, where appropriate, provision of support by the University in the application of this procedure, employees should be invited to provide information about any equality or diversity issues which may be relevant. Confidentiality – All parties involved in these procedures must ensure that they maintain, as appropriate, the confidentiality of the process within and outside he University.
Involvement of Human Resources – A member of the human resources team will be consulted and will advise on suspension, investigation and the formal procedure. Appeals against Sanctions including dismissal – Sanctions or warnings issued as a result of procedures will remain in force pending the outcome of any appeal. 11. Timescales – Whilst every endeavourer will be made to comply with timescales, due to the complexity and or specific circumstances of cases, timescales may be extended. In such circumstances the employee will be advised of the reasons for any delay. 3. 0 Research Methodology
The purpose of the research was to examine the perceptions of employees regarding the case organization’s disciplinary processes, and the effectiveness and subsequent weaknesses of their system. For this purpose, primary sources of information were used in the form of questionnaires and focus group interviews. The targeted population involved a sample group of 172 staff members, which included 77 academic staffs 78 non academic staffs and 25 managerial employees. The purpose of this was to interview a broad selection of employees, from employees working as a classroom teachers.
Non academic staff were also involved. This diverse population would provide a rich source of data from every viewpoint of the organization. A questionnaire was distributed to participants, followed by interviews according to their categorization, where they could elaborate on answers given in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was compiled in a user friendly manner, with participants easily being able to answer the closed ended (yes
o) questions, which was simple and consisting of only a few short questions.
This would provide both written information on the questionnaire, as well as interviews where body language and voice tone loud be observed in reaction to questions asked. This would provide valuable information, which would not have been gathered by any other method, which would go a long way in describing how employees really feel about the case organization’s disciplinary procedures and the application of these in relation to each employee within the organization . Each reference of the school staff are those who has enjoyed long service. 4. Discussion of Findings In measuring the effectiveness and consistency of disciplinary action at the case organization, questions were posed and statements made to ascertain whether he action was effective and consistent, and to identify any weaknesses in the system. “Measurement is ultimately a comparison: a thing or concept measured against a point of limitation” (Leeds & Ramrod, 2010:25). The responses to the closed ended questions and subsequent interviews were as follows: Question Category of employee yes No Do employer treat all employees in the same manner? Management academic non- academic 20 70 80 69 26 10 32 58 31 74 Does orientation discipline procedure lead to healthy working environment? Management Non-academic 17 52 54 68 51 8 50 24 49 Do employer apply the same rules to all employees? Academic 15 0 60 38 62 Are disciplinary policies and procedures visible within the organization? Non-academic 25 28 100 59 36 42 41 4. Do leaders treat all employees in the same manner? The rationale for this data was to measure if leaders apply the same treatment to all workers. The reason for this was to determine if there are other social factors which play a role in how leaders treat their employees.
According to above table, 80% of the management staffer felt that leaders do not treat all employees in the same manner, while 69% academic staffer employees felt the same way, and only of management agreed as well. Reasons elaborated upon during he interviews were that leaders had “favorites” among employees in the organization. This, according to the target population, was as a result of certain employees giving leaders information about other employees work activities and behaviors on the school premise, as well as other private information about employees activities outside the academic environment. . 2 Do leaders apply the same rules to all employees? The rationale for this data was to determine whether all employees within the organization faced the same action for misconduct and other related offences. According to Table , from the non-academic employees surveyed, 31% stated o, 49% of academic staffer, and 40% of management staffer felt that not all employees faced the same consequences for their actions. Reasons given during the focus group interviews were that managers do not subject employees that they “like”to the same sanctions as employees they “dislike”.
A “disliked” employee would be disciplined for slow productivity out come on the job, while a “liked” employee would not. The social relationships between the leaders and workers played a huge role in the actions, and this denominates a large portion of the workforce, where they know that if they are not a “favorite”among leaders, hey would be punished for an error or act which deviates from the normal practices in the workplace,regardless of the reasons therefore. 4. 3 Does the organization’s disciplinary procedures lead to a healthy working environment?
The rationale for this data was to determine what effect the disciplinary procedures had on employees in the workplace. According to Table, 62% of non- academic employees felt that the organization procedures led to an unhealthy working environment, 31 % academic staffer agreed, and 60% of management felt the same way. During the interviews, employees mentioned that the leaders’ inconsistent application of disciplinary measures in the workplace led to the following outcomes: – Low employee morale and motivation. Decreased productivity as a result of unfairness -transfer of aggregation to the students. – Hostility between employees, and employees and leaders, where employees receive different treatment in terms of the application of company disciplinary measures. 4. 4 Are disciplinary policies and procedures visible and accessible within the organization? The rationale for this data was to determine whether employees were aware of the organization’s disciplinary policies and procedures, and if they has access to it.
According to the Table , 64% of the non-academic staffer replied no, 41% of academic staffer workers replied no, and 100% of managerial employees said yes. This was as a result of policies being visible within offices in the organization, and these employees could easily access the information on the organization’s intranet from their computers. Policies and procedures were only pasted on notice boards in some departments and sections within the school while other departments sections did not even have a notice board to display anything on. . 0 Recommendations From the survey and interviews conducted, it is clear that employees at the ease organization perceive that the organization’s disciplinary procedures are inconsistent and ineffective. As reviewed in the literature, it has been shown that this can have detrimental effects on the functioning of an organization and its employees. The following interventions can be implemented to ensure that leaders within the organization apply discipline and its subsequent procedures in the correct manner: 5. Mentoring and Coaching These two approaches can be utilized to guide and direct leaders to use proper procedures and processes within the School system With mentoring, a principal officer could mentor middle managers, transferring knowledge of system dynamics and forming a firm grounding in business knowledge and disciplinary competencies. With coaching, middle managers can direct and lead supervisors, where one on one developmental discussions can be aimed at the specific issues of discipline and how to institute it appropriately according to school organizational policies and legislation. . 2 Ethics Training This will aim to instill in school managers, supervisors and other employees both academic and non academic alike a sense of corporate values, regulations and rules. This will increase awareness of disciplinary issues, expand the scope of personal awareness, and spark imagination on the consequences of non-compliance to organizational policies and procedures. Leaders will then be able to assess how they have been treating employees in the workplace, and hopefully make a change for the better within the business. . 3 Display Company’s disciplinary policies and procedures visibly throughout the business The organization should ensure that all employees in every department of the business has access to and is aware of the company’s rules and procedures guarding disciplinary action. In departments where there are notice boards, copies of these documents should be displayed in an area where employees can view them easily and in a convenient manner.
Notice boards should also be established in those departments where there are none, and copies of the documents also displayed for employees to view. This will ensure that employees are made aware of what offences constitute disciplinary action and the sanctions that will be attached to certain actions in the business. 6. Conclusion Discipline is a difficult aspect to deal with within organizations, especially cause of the human element that is involved in its application and the subsequent procedures and outcomes.
When applied appropriately, it is a powerful tool to bring about change in employee behavior, where organizational goals can be realigned to individual goals for the benefit of both. As much as this is true, the exact opposite can also cause substantial harm to a business. Leaders who do not apply discipline consistently, do not follow organizational procedures, and use disciplinary action for their own vengeful purposes, bring about an unhealthy work environment where employees re dissatisfied and denominated in their jobs.
This is visible within the case organization, where a large majority of employees surveyed feel that some employees are treated more harshly than others, while some employees enjoy preferential treatment regarding discipline within thievishness, as a result of leaders stereotypes, bias and agendas. It was also not surprising to find that leaders themselves felt exactly the opposite way: that they actually follow disciplinary procedures to the last detail and treat all employees in the same manner.
