Discipline without punishment - at last PDF

Preview

Summary

Case summary submission of case Discipline without punishment
...

Description

Discipline without punishment – at last The author through his article attempts to inform the readers on why and how one should make a shift from a punitive approach of punishment to a nonpunitive one. He starts with citing an example of a foreman at Tampa Electric company about how even after giving a disciplinary punishment for his confrontation, his behavior did not change which led to a repetition of his actions again in the future. With this, the author tries to explain that there is a qualitative difference between punitive and nonpunitive punishment in that nonpunitive punishments are a more realistic, more adult, and more positive way to encourage a disciplined workforce. According to the author, self-discipline is the backbone of nonpunitive punishments. The author cites that with the implementation of nonpunitive approach companywide, Tampa Electric reported only favorable results including more effective and accepted disciplinary measures, fewer successful unemployment claims after termination of employees, less absenteeism and fewer arbitrations. Later the author explains why even though having such benefits, nonpunitive approach to punishment is not readily accepted or implemented and has taken so long for managers to understand its importance. In this reasoning, he states five reasons which includes, the perception for the need of nonpunitive approach as inadequate with managers comfortable with traditional disciplinary actions; lack of concern for a corporate culture that influences collective behavior of its members; lack of effective implementation process without proper revaluation of the steps to implement it; changing workforce values; and changing perceptions. The author then cites a few examples of the shift from the previous punitive discipline which he says are accepted but are less productive. These included supervisors writing infractions with the intent of running off troublemakers, a rating scheme which moved in tandem with the disciplinary offense, unpaid suspension at last resort, and the perception that such nonpunitive approach is applicable to only factory types settings. The author explains the problems that the traditional system of disciplinary action is composed of supervisors having to bear the burden of the punishment being carried out, supervisors facing pressure from bosses and peers who are more tolerant of the rules, perception of supervisors that disciplinary action is a way to build a case justifying an individual’s termination and workers being freed from their responsibility. The author further states the basics underlying nonpunitive approach which includes privately providing an oral reminder by manager followed by a written reminder followed by a paid suspension with the primary objective to gain the employee’s agreement to change. The final step is dependent on employee acceptance or refusal to act according to the company’s laws and policies. The rationale stated by the author includes the suspension as the final step with the outcome dependent on the employee; paid suspension reduces anger or resentment which might occur during unpaid ones; good worker not resenting such paid suspensions, cost of paid suspension is far less than those arising due to cost of overtime, inefficiency, and reduced output; reduction in discipline related grievances; and the company’s refusal in making an employee’s career decision. Finally, the author says that in order to implement the approach and to incorporate its philosophy and values, a major organizational effort is required. The supervisor should be trained, the implementation must be reevaluated, general purpose and specific administrative practices properly communicated and the link to this approach properly implemented with all other human resource programs and policies....