Models, styles and metaphors: understanding the management of discipline
| Pages | 349-364 |
| Date | 01 August 1998 |
| Published date | 01 August 1998 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459810232815 |
| Author | Anthony Fenley |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Models, styles
and metaphors
349
Employee Relations,
Vol. 20 No. 4, 1998, pp. 349-364.
#MCB University Press,
0142-5455
Models, styles and
metaphors: understanding
the management of discipline
Anthony Fenley
Ruskin College, Oxford, UK
``The conflict of interests between employers and employed in private industry has two
aspects'' writes Mr Henry Clay in the Observer, ``the purely economic aspect of wages,
and the moral aspect of subordination to discipline.'' There is no lack of testimony to the
importance of the discipline aspect in present day labour feeling. Self respect, status,
independence, personal freedom, personal dignity ± a whole propaganda literature and a
whole set of commentaries on labour have been written around these terms, (Goodrich,
1975, p. 27).
Discipline as a workplace issue
The management of workplace discipline remains a key problem in
employee relations, and is one of the most discernible sources of conflict.
The first Code of Practice published by ACAS (1976) dealt with discipline,
and this was later augmented by an extensive guidance booklet (ACAS,
1987).
In practice, organisations appear to have accepted the importance of
formalising their disciplinary arrangements. In 1984, it was estimated that
90 per cent of enterprises employing 25 or more people had formal
discipline procedures, although only one-third of firms employing fewer
than 20 had such procedures, (Edwards, 1989, p. 306).
Despite of the formalisation of disciplinary procedures, the ACAS
Annual Report for 1997 (ACAS, 1998) shows they received 42,771 unfair
dismissal complaints (36 per cent of which went to tribunals). Of the 1166
collective conciliation cases completed by ACAS in 1997, 12 per cent were
concerned with dismissal and discipline, while 30 per cent of the 71
requests for arbitration involved these matters (ACAS, 1998). Survey
evidence suggests that there are between 200,000 and 250,000 dismissals
each year, excluding other types of disciplinary action, (Edwards, 1989,
p. 306). Each case of discipline and dismissal raises issues as to what
constitutes good employee relations, and whether cases have been dealt
with effectively.
Good employee relations and effective discipline
Views as to what constitutes good employee relations are very much linked
both to the specific goals which are being pursued and to an underlying set
of values. This issue has been discussed by Dobson (1982) who notes that
``little attention has been paid to the criteria which can be used to
Employee
Relations
20,4
350
adjudicate whether the industrial relations of a firm or industry are good or
bad''. He points out it is very d ifficu lt to arri ve at a cons ensus as to what
constitutes `` good employee re lations'' (1982, p. 5).
Although the substance of good employee relations is debatable, it
seems reasonable to claim that the di scipli nary pro cess is li kely to make a
positive contribution to good ind ustria l relations when:
.it assists the ope ration al effec tivene ss of the enterprise;
.there is a feeling of p erceiv ed fairn ess on the part of the workers;
.disagreements and conf licts ca n be structured and resolved rather
than leading to ind ustria l action or other for ms of disa ffection,
including tribunal applicati ons;
.it provides a norm ative fr amewor k for iden tifyin g and deal ing with
problem areas.
However, such a ske letal fr amewor k leaves u nresolved how this might be
fleshed out in practice. Some clues are avail able fro m the comparative and
legal literature on the subject. Locke (1996), in a comparati ve analy sis of
US, German and Japanese management, criticises ``top down i mposed r ules
and sanc tions''. He argu es that wh ere ther e is the pos itive ac ceptan ce of a
work community's codes of conduct, work behaviour and values, this
constitutes the workpla ce's ``m oral ord er'' (p. 2 25) and is likely to be more
successful than the alte rnativ es.
Banderet (1986) identif ied three legal li mits pla ced on the e mployer's
definition of good practice:
(1) offences must be work relat ed;
(2) the employee's act or omiss ion must b e unjust ified;
(3) ``the rule that th e violation of which const itutes a d isciplinary
offence must be reasonable'' (Ban deret, 1 986, pp. 2 68-9).
Writing in the Brit ish cont ext, Eli as (1981, p. 211) not es: ``th e law requ ires
that employers should not r emorse lessly pursue th eir own in terests. They
must also take into account the interest of the worker whose dismissal is
under consideration. Th e functi on of fairness is to reconcile these various
and conflicting intere sts''. W hile Cro zier (19 64, p. 179 ) notes: ``when one
believes that human activities depend on the feelings and sentiments of the
people involved, and on the i nter-p ersona l and group relationships that
influence them, one cannot expect t hat impo sing eco nomic reality on them
will bring constant and pr edicta ble resu lts''.
Arguably, during the 1970s shifts in public policy sought to minimise
conflicts over discipli ne, and in d oing so drew on theoretical perspectives
that had developed in the aca demic li teratu re. However, this article argues
To continue reading
Request your trial