Assignment on Disciplinary Action

Assignment No-1
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

Prepared For: Professor Dr. Mainul Islam

Prepared By: Md. Alamgir Hossain

ID No: 101-14-0017, MBA(R)
Subject Code: HRM-501
Subject Name: Human Resource Management
Date of Submission: 19th April 2010

Assignment No-1 1
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

Assignment on Disciplining the Problem

Employee
There are employees who- regardless of what the organization has done in terms of its efforts at
selection, socialization, job design, performance standards, and reward practices- create
discipline problems for management. These problem employees may be chronically late for
work, have excessive absences, fight with their co-workers, consume drugs n the job, refuse to
obey their boss’s orders, break safety rules, or engage in other similar digression. To solve
these problems properly we have to know first what discipline is.

What is discipline?
The term discipline refers to a condition in the organization when employees
conduct themselves in accordance with the organizations rules and standards of acceptable
behavior. For the most part employees discipline themselves. By that we mean that members
conform to what is considered proper behavior because they believe it is the right thing to do.
Once they are made aware of what is expected of them, and assuming they find these
standards or rules to be reasonable, they seek to meet those expectations.

But not all employees will accept the responsibility of self-discipline. These are
some employees for whom the motivational concepts are not enough to elicit the accepted
norms of responsible employee behavior. These employees will require some degree of
extrinsic disciplinary action. This extrinsic action is frequently labeled punishment.

Types of Discipline Problems

With little difficulty, we could list several dozen or more infractions that management
might believe require disciplinary action. For simplicity sake, we have classified the more
frequent violations into four categories: attendance, on-the-job behaviors, dishonesty, and
outside activities.

1. Attendance

Assignment No-1 2
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

A serious disciplinary problem facing managers undoubtedly involves

attendance. For instance, a study of two hundreds organizations, 60 percent of which employed
over more thousand workers, found that absenteeism, tardiness, abuse of sick leave, and other
aspects of attendance were rated as the foremost problems by 79 percent of the respondents.
Importantly, attendance problems appear to be even more widespread than those related to
productivity- such as carelessness in doing work, neglect of duty, and not following established
procedures.

Why is attendance such a serious problem? While there is no simple or clear

answer, we might postulate several reasons. First, many organizations have failed to align
workers goals with those of the organization. When employee can not relate to their work or to
the organization, the result is usually a decline in attendance. A second reason may be a
changing attitude toward employment. For many people work is not their central life interest,
and hence the desire to conscientiously be at their jobs regularly, and on time, is not of primary
importance. Third, it is obvious that many employees believe that earned sick leave have to be
consumed, regardless of whether they are ill or not. As organizations have increased their paid
sick-leave benefits, as part of expanded benefit packages, many employees have merely
treated these days as just more earned time off. This is especially true of the organizations that
imply “use them or lose them”. A final reason is the greater difficulty involved in firing an
employee, especially those union members protected by a collective bargaining agreement.
However, keep in mind that no union or government legislation will protect a worker who is a
disciplinary problem. The intent of the above is only to ensure that the action that takes place is
fair and unbiased.

2. On-the-Job Behaviors
Second category of disciplinary problem covers on-the-job behaviors. This
blanket label includes insubordination, horseplay, fighting, gambling, failure to use safety
devices, carelessness, and two of the most widely discussed problems in organizations today-
abuse of alcohol and drugs.

Most of the above actions reflect direct infractions of organizations rules. For
instance, refusing to obey a boss’s orders, ignoring safety procedures, or being intoxicated on
the job are all behaviors that are usually expressly forbidden. As a result, these infractions are
rarely difficult to identify. Furthermore, because they represent a clear violation of an
organization’s acceptable standards of behavior, corrective action should be taken immediately.
In contrast to ambiguous infractions (such as taking an unnecessary sick-day leave), fighting,
gambling, or safety infractions represent clear rule violations.

3. Dishonesty

Assignment No-1 3
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

Although not one of the more widespread employee problems confronting

management, dishonesty has traditionally resulted in the most severe disciplinary actions. One
study found that 90 percent of the surveyed organizations would discharge an employee for
theft, even if it was only a first offense. Similarly, 88 percent would discharge those employees
who were found to falsified information on their employment application. It is assumed, rightly or
wrongly, that an employee who lies or steals once cannot be trusted and must therefore
separated from the organization.

4. Outside Activities
Our final problem category covers activities that employees engage in outside of
their work, but which either effect their on-the-job performance or generally reflect negatively on
the organization’s image. Included here are unauthorized strike activities, having one’s wages
garnished, outside criminal activities, and working for a competing organization. Among
managerial personnel, this category would also include bad-mouthing the organization or
questioning the organization’s key values in public.

An individual may be on the job only forty hours a week, but that does not
exclude the organization from disciplining employees when their behavior off the job
embarrasses the organization.

Before Disciplinary Action: Put the Problem in Perspective

The above discussion reflects that there are a wide range of problems that might
require disciplinary action. More important, however, we should recognize that infractions vary
greatly in terms of severity. Therefore, before we review the types of discipline available to
managers, we should look at the major factors that need to be considered if we are to have fair
and equitable disciplinary practices.

The following nine contingency factors have been proposed to help us analyze a
discipline problem

1. Seriousness of the problem: How severe is the problem? As noted previously,

dishonesty is usually considered as a more serious infraction than reporting to work
twenty minutes late.

2. Duration of the problem: Have there been other discipline problems in the past, and
over how long a time span? The violation does not take place in a vacuum. A first
occurrence is usually viewed differently that a third or fourth offence.

Assignment No-1 4
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

3. Frequency and nature of the problem: Is the current problem part of an emerging or
continuing pattern of discipline infractions? We are concern with not only the duration but
also the pattern of the problem. Continual infractions may require a different type of
discipline from that applied to isolated instances of misconduct.

4. Employee’s work history: How long has the employee worked for the organization, and
what has been the quality of his or her performance? For many violations, the
punishment will be less severe for those employees who have developed a strong track
record. Equity would suggest that a violation incurred by employee A, who has been with
the organization for three months, be treated differently form a similar violation incurred
by employee B, who has proved to be an excellent employee for more than twenty years

5. Extenuating factors: Are these extenuating circumstances related to the problem? The
student who fails to turn in her term paper by the deadline date because of the death of
her grandfather is likely to have her violation assessed more leniently than will her peer
who missed the deadline because she overslept.

6. Degree of socialization: To what extent has management made an earlier effort to

educate the person causing the problem about the existing discipline and rules and
procedures and the consequences of violations? Discipline severity must reflect the
degree of knowledge that the violator holds of the organization’s standards of acceptable
behavior. In contrast to point 4, the new employee is less likely to have been socialized
to these standards than the twenty-year veteran. Additionally, the organization that has
formalized written rules governing employee conduct is more justified in aggressively
enforcing violations of these rules than is the organization whose rules are informal or
vague.

7. History of the organization’s practices: How have similar infraction been dealt with in
the past within the department? Within the entire organization? Has there been
consistency in the application of discipline procedures? Equitable treatment of
employees must take into consideration precedents within the unit where the infraction
occurs, as well as previous disciplinary actions taken in other units within the
organization. Equity demands consistency against some relevant benchmark.

8. Implications for other employees: What impact will the discipline selected have on
other workers in the unit? There is a little point to taking a certain action against an
employee if it has a major dysfunctional effect on others within the unit. The end result
may be only to convert a narrow and single disciplinary problem into a widespread
headache for management.

9. Management backing: If employees decide to take their case to a higher level in

management, will you have reasonable evidence to justify your decision? Should the
employee challenge your disciplinary action, it is important that you have the data to
back up the necessity and equity of the action taken and feel confident that your superior
will support your decision. No disciplinary action is likely to carry much weight if violators
believe that they can challenge successfully override their manager’s decision.

Assignment No-1 5
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

General Guidelines in Administering Discipline

The human resource manager should be aware that, over time, we have
developed some guidelines to indicate how discipline should be administered. These
guidelines are briefly discussed below

1. Make disciplinary action corrective not punitive: The objective of the

disciplinary action is not to deal out punishment. The objective is to correct an
employee’s undesirable behavior. While punishment may be a necessary
means to that end, one should never lose sight of the eventual objective.

2. Make disciplinary action progressive: Although the type of disciplinary

action that is appropriate may vary depending on the situation, it is generally
desirable for discipline to be progressive. Only for the most serious violations
will an employee be dismissed after a first offense. Typically, progressive
disciplinary action begins with an oral warning and proceeds through a written
warning, suspension, and, only in the most serious cases, dismissal.

3. Follow the “Hot Stove” rule: Administering discipline can be viewed as

analogous to touching a hot stove. While both are painful to the recipient, the
analogy goes further. When you touch a hot stove you get an immediate
response. The burn you receive is instantaneous, leaving no question of
cause and effect. You have ample warning. You know what happen if you
touch a red-hot stove. Furthermore, the result is consistent. Every time you
touch a hot stove, you get the same response-you get burned. Finally, the
result is impersonal. Regardless of who you are, if you touch a hot stove you
will be burned. The comparison between touching a hot stove and
administering discipline should be apparent, but let us briefly expand on each
of the four points in the analogy

The impact of a disciplinary action will be reduced as the time between the
infraction and the penalty’s implementation lengthens. The more quickly the
discipline follows the offence, the more likely it is that the employee will
associate the discipline with the offense rather than with the manager
imposing the discipline. As a result, it is best that the disciplinary process
begin as soon as possible after the violation is noticed. Of course, the desire
for immediacy should not result in undue haste. If all the facts are not in,
managers will often invoke a temporary suspension, pending a final decision
in the case.

Assignment No-1 6
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

The manager has an obligation to give advance warning prior to initiating

formal disciplinary action. This means the employee must be aware of the
organization’s rules and accept its standards of behavior. Disciplinary action
is more likely to be interpreted as fair by employees when it is known what
that discipline will be.

Fair treatment of employees also demands that disciplinary action be

consistent. When rule violations are enforced in an inconsistent manner, the
rules lose their impact. Morale will decline and employees will question the
competence of management. Productivity will suffer as a result of employee
insecurity and anxiety. All employees want to know the limits of permissible
behavior, and they look to the actions of their managers for such feedback.

The last guideline that follows from the “hot stove” rule is keep the discipline
impersonal. Penalties should be connected with a given violation, not with the
personality of the violator. That is discipline should be directed at what an
employee has done, not the employee herself. As a manager, we should
make it clear that we are avoiding personal judgment about the employee’s
character. We are penalizing the rule violation, not the individual. And all
employees committing the violation can be expected to be penalized.
Furthermore, once the penalty has been imposed, the manager must make
every effort to forget the incident. She should attempt to treat the employee in
the same manner as she had prior to the infraction.

Disciplinary Actions
Discipline generally follows a typical sequence of four steps: oral warning, written
warning, suspension, and dismissal. Two additional steps, which would logically follow
suspension- demotion and pay cuts-are less popular but are important enough to justify
discussion. These sis steps are discussed below

Oral Warning: The mildest form of discipline is the oral warning. This reprimand
is best achieved if completed in a private and informal environment. The manager
should begin by clearly informing the employee of the rule that has been violated and the
problem that this infraction has caused. For instance, if the employee has been late
several times, the manager would reiterate the organization’s rule that employees are to
be at their desks by 8.00 A.M., and then proceed to give specific evidence of how
violations of this rule has resulted in an increase in workload for others and has lowered
departmental morale. After the problem has been made clear, the manager should then

Assignment No-1 7
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

allow the employee to respond. Is she aware of the problem? Are there extenuating
circumstances that justify her behavior? What does she plan to do to correct her
behavior?

After the employee has been given the opportunity to make her case, the
manager must determine if the employee has proposed an adequate solution to the problem. If
this has not been done, then the manager should direct the discussion toward helping the
employee figure out ways to prevent the trouble from recurring. Once a solution has been
agreed upon, the manager should ensure that the employee understands what, if any, follow-up
action will be taken if the problem recurs.

If the oral warning is effective, further official disciplinary action can be avoided. If
the employee fails to improve, the manager will need to consider more severe action. A final
point on the oral earning: It is a good idea to make a temporary record of this reprimand and
place it in the employee’s file. It should state the purpose, date, and outcome of the interview
with the employee. Once the employee has demonstrated that she has corrected the problem,
the record of the oral reprimand can be removed from her file.

Written Warning: The second step in the progressive discipline is the written
warning. In effect it is the first formal stage of the discipline procedure. This is true
because the written warning becomes the part of the employee’s official file. This is
achieved by not only giving the warning to the employee but sending a copy to the
personnel department to be inserted in the employee’s permanent record. In all other
ways, however, the procedure preceding the writing of the warning is the same as the
oral warning. That is, the employee is advised of the violation, its effect, and potential
consequences of future violations. The only difference is that the discussion concludes
with the employee being told that a written warning will be issued. Then the manager
writes up the warning-stating the problem, the rule that has been violated, any
acknowledgement by the employee to correct her behavior, and the consequences from
a recurrence of the deviant behavior.

While written warnings are more severe, many organizations are allowing
employees to purge their personnel files of these warnings after a period of time (usually two
years of proper work behavior).

Suspension: A suspension or layoff would be next disciplinary steps, usually

taken only if the prior steps have been implemented without the desired outcome.
Exceptions-where suspension is given without any prior oral or written-occasionally
occur if the infraction is a serious enough nature.

A suspension may be for one day or several weeks. Disciplinary layoffs in excess
of a month are rare. Some organizations skip this step completely because it can have negative
consequences for both the company and the employee. From the organizations perspective, a

Assignment No-1 8
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

suspension means the loss of the employee for the layoff period. If the person has a unique
skills or is a vital part of a complex process, her loss during the suspension period may severely
impact on her department or the organization’s performance if a suitable replacement can not
be located. From the employee’s standpoint, a suspension can result in the employee returning
in a more unpleasant and negative frame of mind than before the layoff.

Then why should management consider suspending employees as a disciplinary

measure? The answer is that a short layoff, without pay, has the potential to be a rude
awakening to problem employees. It may convince them that management is serious and shock
them back to accepting responsibility for following the organization’s rules.

Demotion: If suspension has not been effective and management want to

strongly avoid dismissing the problem employee, demotion may be an alternative. However, we
should point out that few organizations use demotion as a discipline measure, probably because
it tends to demoralize not only the employee but the co-workers as well. Also, in contrast to the
previous action, it is not temporary. A demotion is a constant punishment to the demoted
employee and hence has broad motivation implications.

If demotion has a place as a disciplinary action, if probably is where (1) the

employee clearly has the ability to perform the job, (2) management perceives itself legally or
ethically constrained from firing the employee (for example, an employee with thirty years of
tenure in the organization), and (3) it is believed that a blatant demotion will awaken the
employee. In such instances, demotion is a loud message that such employee will have to
shape up radically if they want their old job back, and that management has no intention of
letting them “get away” with chronic abuses of the organization’s rules.

Pay Cut: Another alternative, also rarely applied in practice, is cutting the
problem employee’s pay. Certainly, this approach usually has a demoralizing effect on the
employee, but it has been suggested as a rational action by management if the only other
alternative is dismissal.

From management’s perspective, dismissal means losing the individual’s

experience and background. A replacement will be hired in at a lower salary but still has to be
trained to do the job. In cost-benefit terms, it may be to management’s advantage to save the
hiring and training costs incurred with a new employee and saving the investment the
organization has already made in that person. And, of course, if the problem employee alters
her behavior, the pay cut can always be rescinded.

Dismissal: Management’s ultimate disciplinary punishment is dismissing the

problem employee. Dismissal should be used only for the most serious offenses. Yet it may be

Assignment No-1 9
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

only feasible alternative when an employee’s behavior is so bad as to seriously interface with a
department or the organization’s operation.

A dismissal decision should be given long and hard consideration. For almost all
individual, being fired from a job is an emotional trauma. For employees who have been with the
organization for many years and for those over fifty years of age, it may make it difficult to obtain
new employment or require the individual to undergo extensive retraining. In addition,
management should consider the possibility that a dismissed employee will take legal action to
fight the decision. Recent court cases indicate that juries are cautiously building a list of
conditions under which employees may not be lawfully discharged.

Employment-at-Will Doctrine
Background

The concept of the employment-at-will doctrine is rooted in

nineteenth century common law, which permitted employers to discipline or discharge an
employee at their discretion. We can define employment-at-will as the process whereby
“employees may be discharged for whatever reason the employer may elect”. This means that
employers “may dismiss their employees at will… for good cause, for no cause or even for
cause morally wrong, without being guilty of legal wrong”.

The common law practice of employment-at-will has heavily

influenced the courts’ interpretation of employee discharge. However certain protections have
been imposed. The Wagner Act “prohibited employers from discharging workers because of
union membership or union activities and gave employees dismissed in violation of the statute
the right to reinstatement with back pay”.

Implied Employment Contracts

While the employment-at-will doctrine is still very much alive in
organizations today, even though it has been curtailed by pieces of legislation, recent court
interpretations may have begun to curb its use even further. This has occurred when there is an
implied contract between the organization and an employee. This implied contract can be
generated at many stages, but it is primarily found during interviewing activity. If during the
interview, any “organizational guarantees or promises about job security were made by the
company, or written statements in policy manuals or employee handbooks implying or stating
that an employee would be terminated only for just cause,” these statements may have become
legally binding contracts.

Disciplining Special Employee Groups

Assignment No-1 10
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

To this point we have treated all employees alike. Yet

certain employee groups require special attention because they have unique characteristics. In
this section, we will consider some modifications in disciplinary action necessary when dealing
with unionized and professional employees.

Unionized Employees: Where employees belong to a union, there will be a collective-

bargaining agreement. This agreement, among other things, will outline rules governing the
behavior of union members. It will also identify disciplinary procedures and clarify the steps
members are to follow if they believe that they are receiving arbitrary or unfair treatment.

Most collective bargaining agreements stipulate that employees can only

be disciplined for “just cause,” and they provide a grievance procedure and opportunities for
third-party arbitration if employees believe they have been wronged. Disciplining a unionized
employee thus tends to be more formal or quasi-legal undertaking than the disciplining of
nonunion employees. The bargaining contract, the existence of a grievance procedure, the right
to arbitrate differences, and the whole quasi-legal management-labor relationship- all act to
reduce management’s discretion in taking disciplinary action.

Professional Employees: Professional employees- engineers, computer specialist,

accountants, scientists, health-care specialists, and so forth- also present unique disciplinary
problems. Because they hold high skills and frequently posses important and valuable
information about the organization, they are more difficult to replace if dismissed and can
discredit the organization with competitors, suppliers, customers or clients, government
agencies, or other constituencies.

These factors suggest that management must take greater care in

disciplining professional employees than it might take with nonunion zed operative employees.
They may also explain the replacement of traditional dismissal actions with the practice of
rehiring and offering outplacement services.

Rehiring seeks to get the employee to quit voluntarily. If the employee is

not performing adequately and corrective attempts have proved unsuccessful, management can
begin sending out clues that the professional’s services are no longer needed. Excluding such
employees from important meetings, bypassing them on key memos, and reassigning them to
boring and unchallenging tasks are examples of actions that should convey the message. If
their actions are successful, the employees find another job and give their notice. The end result
is the same as if the professional had been out rightly fired; however, face is saved by both by
the employee and the organization.

Another approach that replaces the traditional dismissal action is

outplacement counseling. Also used for non disciplinary purposes- during cutbacks or
redundancies caused by mergers- outplacement counseling is usually provided free of cost to
the professionals by their employer for the purpose of assisting the employees in marketing their
services. Counselors provide guidance in designing and updating one’s resume and making

Assignment No-1 11
Assignment on Disciplinary Action

lists of contacts, coaching in how to go out on interview, and advice on how to follow up on
leads and how to evaluate any job offers that are received.

Conclusion
We have considered a number of aspects regarding disciplining the
problem employee. Our discussion focused on a disciplinary process that was fair, equitable,
and consistently practiced. The typical progression of discipline moves from an oral warning, to
written warning, to suspension, and if necessary, to dismissal. Management might also consider
the use of demotion and pay cuts as an alternative to dismissal

Assignment No-1 12