Discipline in the workplace

Levasana DOUGLAS Eastern University, Sri Lanka.

Discipline in the workplace is the means by which supervisory personnel correct behavioral deficiencies and ensure adherence to established company rules. The purpose of discipline is correct behaviour. It is not designed to punish or embarrass an employee.

Often, a positive approach may solve the problem without having to discipline. However, if unacceptable behaviour is a persistent problem or if the employee is involved in a misconduct that cannot be tolerated, management may use discipline to correct the behaviour.

In general, discipline should be restricted to the issuing of letters of warning, letters of suspensions, or actual termination. Employers should refrain from "disciplining" employees by such methods as altering work schedules, assigning an employee to do unpleasant work, or denying vacation requests.

Industry's four costliest disciplinary problems involve absenteeism, wasted time, substance abuse and pilfering, and there are as many approaches to making and enforcing work policies as there are companies. The fairest work policies are the ones that allow employees to discipline themselves when they have demonstrated undesirable behaviour which extends even to the point of terminating themselves. And also hasten to add that there are not and cannot be "fair" policies on anything, to everyone, all the time. No matter how good the policy, someone, some day, will claim that it is "unfair."

Management always has struggled to find a judicious way to establish and enforce fair rules of employee conduct. The objectives are vital and non-controversial: to promote the health and safety of all employees; protect company property; ensure steady production; conform to legal requirements; and create a pleasant working environment. But basic philosophies and methods for achieving these goals often are at issue.

Would positive results best be achieved by letting employees know all the possible rules and the penalties for violating them? Or should rules be sketched "once over lightly," to avoid projecting an image of treating employees as if they are potential delinquents, or immature individuals without the "sense" to know the basic rules of industrial behaviour?

Astute labour lawyers usually will advise their clients to detail disciplinary matters and associated punishments on paper. Their argument is two-fold. First, with a written copy of the rules, employees can determine if they are receiving fair and impartial treatment; and second, employers can protect themselves from doling out hefty settlements in court. Most labour dispute cases are lost when there are no written policies or documentation of policy infringements to support management's position.

Managers who condone a relaxed approach to discipline are setting themselves up for legal disasters. This type of manager may argue that employees constantly barraged by "do's" and "don'ts" will feel as if they are being treated like children, and therefore have less incentive to act like adults.

Examples of misconduct which could result in discipline:

* Excessive tardiness

* Failure to notify of an absence

* Insubordination

* Rude or abusive language in the workplace

* Failure to follow "Departmental Rules or Policies ", i.e., not wearing safety equipment, not following correct cash handling procedures * Dishonesty

* Theft

Though commendable in intent, the relaxing of rules and formal punishments usually has proved to be the wrong prescription for positively influencing a work force. Evidence has shown that when management fails to apply punitive measures, its behaviour is interpreted as a sign of weakness by employees.

In the sensitive area of employee discipline, management can learn much from educators and child development experts. Basically, the lesson is to avoid the extremes. Firmness and fairness must go hand in hand. While not tied down by rigid rules and regulations, employees must know that there are limits on personal expression and behaviour, and realize that they are not just individuals, but also members of a group. Employees must understand fully the reasons for the limits placed on their freedom. Also, they must know the consequences of disobeying the rules, and be convinced that the employer will not allow them to get away with breaking the rules.

The written rules should not sound confrontational, but instead reflect that they were written with employees' welfare in mind. However, wording should not be apologetic. Nor should it be of a general or ambiguous nature.

State the rule, state the punishment, period. Poorly written behavioural guidelines generally intensify employee belligerence and tend to breed offenders. The fairest disciplinary systems usually "grade" employees by penalizing them for their accumulated rule infractions rather than for single acts, and offenses typically are graded according to their seriousness. To remind employees of the seriousness of even the most minor infraction, however, management should keep a written record of all infractions (including verbal warnings or discussions about rule infractions) and tell employees: "All infractions become part of a written record in your employee file." In today's litigation climate, these written records are the best defence against that smiling employee who one day may sue you and your company.

Be aware: The ways employees break company rules always will vary. Thus, a prescribed set of corresponding penalties never will be comprehensive; and a predetermined rule can be alternately too harsh or too lenient, depending on who violates it and under what circumstances. No matter how long your list of rules, exceptions always will occur, and need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Finally, a good plan should provide a means for employees to erase penalty points from their records, through good behaviour, at a specified rate.

Perhaps the most pleasant task for supervisors and managers is the task of disciplining an employee. While some staff seems to think that managers take some perverse pleasure in the process, the truth is that it is usually dreaded, and often done in an ineffective way.

Part of the reason why this is so is that there are some psychological factors in play that militate against constructive discipline processes.

We can identify some common errors here, and which may help you to formulate an approach to discipline based on sound principles.

Discipline as punishment

Perhaps one of the most prevalent errors is based on the idea that discipline is punishment. The manager that perceives discipline as a punishment process tends to apply negative sanctions, expecting that those negative sanctions will have some sort of positive effect; for example, to eliminate the unwanted behaviour simply through the "threat" of additional sanctions.

Unfortunately, the use of negative sanctions on their own, bring about unpredictable results. In rare cases, they may work, through the fear factor. In other cases, they have an effect opposite to the one intended, and can contribute to escalation in the manager-employee relationship. Why? Because negative sanctions will only succeed when:

* the employee values what is taken away or fears what is threatened.

* the employee sees the sanction as fair, and consistent with the "offence".

* the employee acknowledges and respects the right of the manager to impose the sanction.

* unless these three elements are in place, employees respond to punishment with resentment, and counter-attacking, either covertly or overtly.

What is the alternative perspective? The alternative perspective is to consider discipline in its original sense, as an opportunity for the employee to learn.

The traditional notion of a disciple (same roots) is of a person who learns from one s/he follows. Discipline, in this approach focuses on what the employee must learn in order to bring his/her behaviour in line with the needs and expectations of the organization.

Discipline as an I-you confrontation

A second error is that some managers see discipline as something done to an employee, not something done with an employee. Perhaps we must consider a hard reality in the government workplace; it's pretty difficult to do anything to an employee without getting wound in trails of paper, documentation, and investment of time. Even then it can be to no avail.

We suggest that you consider discipline as requiring you and the staff member to work together to solve a problem. The fundamental task, when possible, is to create a situation which encourages the staff member to work with you to identify causes of problematic behaviour, and to take action to correct those problems.

Discipline needs to be a "we process".

Too late, too late

It's probably safe to say that managers do not go hunting for disciplinary problems. Lord knows, you have enough other things to do to look for trouble. Sometimes, though managers are TOO slow to respond to an emerging issue or problem. There are a number of reasons for this:

* tendency to see an emerging problem (e.g.. a first instance), as a quirk, a fluke, or accident, and something not worth addressing.

* desire to have harmony

* perception that discipline is a cause of disharmony

* simple dread

The reason why delay is problematic is that it sends a message that undesirable behaviour will be accepted or even not noticed. Second, delay can have an adverse effect on the manager later, if the problem increases in frequency and intensity so it cannot be ignored. When a problem is allowed to grow, the manager often will develop an emotional set towards the employee that makes constructive interaction difficult. To be blunt managers get pissed off, at repeated "offenses" even if the manager has done nothing to stop them.

It is very important that inappropriate behaviour or actions in the workplace be, at minimum, noted, and the fact communicated with the staff member, right at the first occurrence. This need not be a lengthy difficult discussion, particularly if the event is relatively minor. The really lengthy, unpleasant discussion tends to occur as a result of not addressing problems early on.

A non-progressive approach

Related to the previous point (Error-3) is the issue of progressiveness, or lack of it. Progressive discipline starts with the least possible use of power and disciplinary action, and over time, will involve stronger actions, if the situation continues.

Managers who delay disciplinary action tend to wait until action must be taken, when the situation has become so severe that it must be addressed immediately. Often the manager feels the need to apply harsh sanctions, because, perhaps the inappropriate behaviour has become more extreme.

Non-progressive measures (harsh initial action), when applied to a long time, but not addressed problem, often seem too harsh by the employee, and on occasion, by their co-workers. A key here is to start with least forceful action as early as possible, unless of course the offense is so severe that it requires immediate harsh action.

Missing root causes

It is understandable when beleaguered and frustrated managers/supervisors "lay down the law" to a problem employee. In some cases, a problem employee may require this kind of approach particularly if they have the skills to do what is desired, but have not been applying the skills for one reason or another, related to motivation.

But in many situations, exhortation, threats, or an offer of positive rewards may have little effect on behaviour, simply because they do not address the root causes of the problem, and leave the employee "on their own" to figure out a solution.

Sometimes an employee is not succeeding because they lack the skills (even if they are not aware of the skill deficit). Sometimes an employee is not succeeding because they have underlying personal or psychological problems. And, sometimes an employee is not succeeding because the system in which s/he works is not set up to engineer success.

Without knowing the root causes underlying a performance problem it will be difficult to work with an employee to improve that performance.

Just cause and its effect on discipline

In reviewing whether or not management was correct in its choice to discipline, arbitrators have looked at a number of factors. These factors must be taken into account by management when deciding to use discipline:

* Did the employee clearly understand the rule or policy that was violated?

For example, were the work rules or policy provided to the employee prior to the violation. It is management responsibility to prove that the employee knew the rule or policy.

* Was the rule or policy consistently and fairly enforced by management?

For example, did management have a history of ignoring the departmental policy on wearing safety equipment, but singled out an employee for discipline anyway.

* Did the employee know that violating the rule or policy could lead to discipline?

* The seriousness of the offence in terms of violating company rules of conducts or company obligations.

For example, being a few minutes late for a shift would not be viewed as being as serious an offence as striking another employee or stealing company property.

* The long service of the employee.

* The previous good (or bad) work record of the employee.

* Provocation

Was the employee pushed into acting rudely or violently as a result of management or a customer's actions? This is a very common defense for employees involved in insubordination.

* Did the employee admit to the misconduct and apologize for their behaviour.

Arbitrators will often rule harshly against employees who are deceptive during an investigation and who show no remorse for their actions.

This list is not exhaustive, but it does include some of the more important factors that should be reviewed prior to issuing discipline.

Progressive discipline is an effective management tool

Progressive discipline means applying increasing levels of discipline to employees who repeatedly violate workplace rules. If the employee does not respond to discipline, the last violation becomes the "culminating incident" the point at which you no longer need to tolerate the misconduct and may terminate the employee for just cause.

Progressive discipline helps correct employee behaviour and bring it within acceptable standards, ensuring a productive and satisfied workforce. The goal of discipline is not to fire someone it's to make them a better employee.

Although repeat offenders may end up losing their jobs, the goal of progressive discipline is not to enable you to fire a misbehaving employee (although that is commonly what it is used for), rather the purpose is to:

* Reform the employee and bring his or her conduct within acceptable standards

* Deter other employees from engaging in similar conduct; and

* Maintain control over the workplace as a whole.

The essential steps: * Don't avoid it

Managers frequently avoid discipline in the misguided hope that the problem will go away if ignored. But it doesn't. In fact, more often than not, problems that are ignored only get worse. Although it's difficult and stressful to discipline someone, you owe it to your organization and the individual in question to do so. You don't do anyone any favours by allowing them to persist in behaviours that ultimately make you want to terminate their employment.

* Establish your expectations

Let your employees know what you expect from them. That way they can monitor their behaviour themselves and make efforts to meet your expectations. Most employees want to comply with the rules but need to be told what they are in order to do so.

One important way to establish expectations is to educate your staff about your organization's policies. You can do this by discussing policies at staff meetings, paying close attention to those policies that your staff doesn't seem to understand or be following. For example, if lateness is a problem, outline the policy on absenteeism and lateness.

* Investigate an alleged rule violation before you impose discipline

Before imposing discipline, you must investigate the alleged incident to determine whether a breach of a workplace rule has occurred. This involves:

* giving the employee notice of the alleged violation and an opportunity to be heard

* investigating the offence immediately after you find out about it; and

* not imposing discipline if you have insufficient proof of the offence.

Make sure that you separate the investigation and the imposition of discipline. This means giving the employee an opportunity to defend him of herself and then taking some time to consider the evidence before deciding what discipline to impose.

If you impose discipline in the same meeting in which the employee explains what happened, it will appear as though you went into the meeting with your mind made up and didn't actually give the person the opportunity to be heard. This is a legal no-no.

* Consider the seriousness of the offence

If an offence has occurred, you will need to consider how serious it is before handing out discipline.

The type of discipline you impose should correspond to the seriousness of the offence.

For example, things like lateness or personal use of company computers are generally considered minor offences whereas fighting or insubordination is more serious offences.

* Consider all the prevailing circumstances

Consider all other aspects of the situation, including:

* the employee's previous record of incidents (which must have been brought to his or her attention)

* whether you have condoned the behaviour in the past the employee's understanding of the violated policy

* provocation, i.e., if the employee was provoked, you may want to impose a lower level of discipline

* whether there is a credibility dispute

* whether you have firsthand knowledge of the facts and have thoroughly investigated the incident, including speaking to witnesses; and

* whether you can prove the facts surrounding the incident.

* Decide on the appropriate level of discipline

Your next step is to decide what level of discipline is appropriate. Sometimes managers treat two employees differently for the same workplace violation. For example, a top performer may be given a slap on the wrist for insubordination while an average performer is given a stern written warning for the same behaviour.

This can create unnecessary conflict and may result in claims of unfair treatment or even discrimination. It is far better to tie the disciplinary measure to the offence rather than the employee.

Many organizations use a traditional progressive discipline system that utilizes verbal warnings, written warnings and suspensions. Another approach that is gaining popularity is a three level system. Under this system, the first level is a Level One warning, which is used for minor offences. A Level Two warning is for more serious rule violations or for repeat violations. The final warning is a Level Three warning. This is for very serious matters and for repeated rule violations for which the employee has already received a Level Two Warning.

This is the type of offence which, in a traditional progressive discipline system, typically results in a suspension. To be continued