44.312
Security Management
home
page > Unit 9: discipline and
discharge
Creating and
designing the disciplinary program
If
it's to help with organizational
development, have to make certain that employees are involved
in creating and administering the system. Gives them a stake,
and increases commitment to the rules.
Other considerations:
- Is the disciplinary program
consistent with the corporate culture?
For example, if the company claims it is a "learning organization" and encourages risk taking, can't punish people for that. Or, if you emphasize teamwork, members of teams may assume some of the role of administering discipline: have to let that happen - Is the program consistent with
legislation and case law, collective-bargaining agreements, and
any other contracts between the employer and employee?
"Disciplinary activities are employment practices in that the outcomes could raise a claim of disparate treatment against an employee or of disparate impact against a group of employees affected by the outcomes of the disciplinary process." - Is it enforceable?
If some of the work rules are outdated, or vague, may not be workable. That can lead to conflict over their interpretation and worker cynicism. The text book suggests this guideline: " If the policy cannot be enforced on a consistent and fair basis, management should reevaluate and subsequently eliminate or redesign the policy"
Administering
the disciplinary program
Responsibility for administering
it varies depending on organizational culture and philosophy,
management styles, and existing policies and procedures.
Used to be standards that direct supervisors were responsible,
and that led to an operational (i.e., relating to the facility's
production needs) approach, rather than a strategic one.
A more progressive view is that everyone
is responsible for discipline. "This strategic paradigm
shifts the concept of discipline from a truly operational function
to one that incorporates discipline into the overall strategy,
and, hence, effectiveness of the organization."
- This can be carried out through "concertive controls," in which work teams set their own norms by which teams are governed. "Using the existing core values of the organization, these employees set normative standards by negotiating and reaching consensus on how to shape their behaviors to meet organizational goals. ..this results in employees' changing their attitude from 'we do it because the rules say so' -- an operational paradigm -- to 'we do it because it is right/good/proper' -- a strategic paradigm."
- Law
of Unintended Consequences can kick in. James Barker, in
his
study of self-administered teams in an electronics company,
found -- ironically -- that over a period of years, the self-administered
norms that evolved hardened into self-imposed rules, with formal
penalties. The informal role of coordinator hardened into a paid
position of facilitator. The workers supported these steps, but,
ultimately the system that resulted was one that resembled the
original one of top-down control. "The employees said they
felt under more stress with the new system than the old one.
The new ones complained of the constant strain of self-management.
People monitored each others actions."