Assignment on Disciplining the Problem Employee

Assignment on Disciplinary Action

Assignment No-1


Assignment No-1 1

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

Prepared For: Professor Dr. Mainul Islam


Assignment on Disciplining the Problem EmployeeThere 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

Assignment No-1 2


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

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

Assignment No-1 3


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

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

Assignment No-1 4


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.

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

Assignment No-1 5


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.

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

Assignment No-1 6


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.

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

Assignment No-1 7


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 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).

Assignment No-1 8


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 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

Assignment No-1 9


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 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

Assignment No-1 10


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

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

Assignment No-1 11


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 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

Assignment on Disciplining the Problem Employee

Documents

Transcript of Assignment on Disciplining the Problem Employee