Employee Discipline
Employee discipline is an issue that management has to deal with on a daily basis and remain mindful of the consequences that can emerge if not dealt with sufficiently. Traditionally, employers have often used the punitive approach of employee discipline. In this method, employees are subjected to penalties and punishment in the form of suspensions, warnings, or reprimands without pay when they fail to abide by the rules and regulations of the workplace. The primary goal of this approach is to scare other employees into not indulging in undesirable actions. The punitive method of discipline, however, does not directly address an employee’s behavior and thus does not inspire change among the employees. Besides, punishment is not pleasant. For this reason, punitive methods of discipline negatively affect employee relations. It results in a lot of hostility and resentment on the part of employees. Management has to employ a progressive system of discipline in an effort to avert these negative consequences.
Over the last couple of years, a more positive approach of discipline has been gaining popularity, that is the non-punitive approach, otherwise known as ‘self-imposed’ discipline.’ Non-punitive disciplinary approaches allow employees to truly confront their attendance or performance problems and take responsibility for their behavior. A method that focuses on correcting the issue is a more effective method of disciplining employees compared to one that emphasizes on punishing the offender. The non-punitive approach maintains an employee’s self-respect and dignity and thus minimizes cases of conflict and promotes cooperation between employees and supervisors (Campbell, Fleming, & Grote, 1985). It also builds up morale among employees and reduces the need for personal supervision to ensure the staff abides by organizational procedures, standards, rules, and regulations. From a manager’s perspective, the beneficial aspect of non-punitive discipline is that it ensures there is no disruption to the workflow since the offender does not actually leave the workplace. However, this approach is not applicable in every case, and some flagrant violations and unacceptable behavior may warrant punitive actions such as suspension and termination.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Performance Management
Performance is the true measure for a company’s sustainability in the industry. High-performing employees contribute to superior performance, and this extra effort is what differentiates excellent organizations from merely good ones. Therefore, high-performing employees give the companies they work for a competitive advantage. Every company should have a performance management system that can effectively evaluate or measure the contribution of employees toward accomplishing organizational goals. The first element of an effective performance management system is acceptability. A performance management system directly affects the employees, and thus it would be better if they accepted it. Employees will accept a performance management system when they believe that it is a fair measure of performance (Pulakos, 2004).
A performance management system should also be reliable which is measured by the consistency of the performance measure. This means that the system should measure the performance of the employees to the highest level of accuracy possible. Flexibility is an essential element of a performance management system. Companies are always evolving and so should the employees’ behavior. Effective performance management systems must adapt to the changing strategic emphases. Performance management systems often spark a lot of controversies in the workplace and thus to be effective the system should be fair and just. Managers do not always measure their employees comprehensively or accurately. However, the system can achieve fairness by incorporating multiple perspectives. Last but not least a performance management should measure not only performance but also elevate it. It should have the capacity to link the individual’s performance to the company’s strategic objectives and current initiatives.
Employee and Labor Relations
In order to understand the differences between nonunion complaint processes and union grievances, one must first comprehend the processes individually. According to the procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement signed by union workers, the complaint process begins by filing a grievance with the Union. Grievances are dealt with systematically starting with an informal review (Carrell & Heavrin, 2010). This stage often entails a problem discussion meeting between a union representative, the employee, and a supervisor. If the issue cannot be resolved at the first step, then the following steps will follow. A management review, written responses, and appeals. The problem might warrant an arbitrator if it cannot be resolved at the company level. A good grievance procedure provides employees with an opportunity to address the issues before they escalate into serious problems or lead to litigation.
Unlike the union grievances process, a nonunion complaint process is much simpler. Most organizations usually employ a formal grievance procedure starting with a supervisor, employee, and human resources review. An employee may file a complaint with a federal agency like the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the event the problem is not resolved at the company level. Therefore, nonunion complain processes are normally far more flexible than union grievances since they vary widely depending on their adoption. Grievance processes do somehow differ from employer to employer and under certain collective bargaining agreements. Nevertheless, most employ the same general procedures. Grievances filing issues in unionized settings are typically similar to those in nonunionized settings and deal with issues like work conditions, pay, and work assignments benefits. Most nonunion complaint processes lack advocacy, meaning that the stakeholders are often left out of the process of developing nonunion dispute resolution structures (Currie, Gormley, Roche, & Teague, 2017). Therefore, this issue should be addressed as a means of improving the process's level of transparency and acceptability among employees.
References
Campbell, D. N., Fleming, R. L., & Grote, R. C. (1985, July). Discipline Without Punishment—At Last . Havard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1985/07/discipline-without- punishment-at-last
Carrell, M. R., & Heavrin, C. (2010). Labor relations and collective bargaining: Cases, practice,
and law . Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Pulakos, E. D. (2004). Performance management: A roadmap for developing, implementing and
evaluating performance management systems . Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.
Currie, D., Gormley, T., Roche, B., & Teague, P. (2017). The Management of Workplace Conflict: Contrasting Pathways in the HRM Literature. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 19, 4, 492-509.
