Supervisor and manager approaches to handling discipline and grievance: a follow‐up study
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480010296951 |
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| Pages | 743-768 |
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Author | Derek J. Rollinson |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Discipline and
grievance
743
Personnel Review,
Vol. 29 No. 6, 2000, pp. 743-768.
#MCB University Press, 0048-3486
Received October 1998
Revised May 1999
Accepted May 1999
Supervisor and manager
approaches to handling
discipline and grievance:
a follow-up study
Derek J. Rollinson
Huddersfield University, Huddersfield, UK
Keywords Discipline, Grievances, Managers, Handling, Management styles
Abstract This paper reports the results of a follow-up study to two linked articles appearing in
earlier issues of this journal. It examines the relative influence of factors affecting the approach
of supervisors or managers to dealing with disciplinary or grievance incidents. For discipline the
most influential factors are identified as: the inconvenience of the employee rule transgression
and the length of an employee's service, with comparatively minor effects for employee gender,
manager gender, pri or training and exper ience in handling issu es, and whether an
organization is unionised. With grievance the most influential factors are: the challenge to
management authority of an issue, length of employee service, employee gender and to a lesser
extent the age and gender of the manager, and whether the organization is unionised.
Implications for future research and the training of supervisors and managers are then
outlined.
Introduction
This paper presents the findings of a follow-up study to a research
investigation reported in two linked articles that appeared in earlier editions of
this journal (Hook et al., 1996; Rollinson et al., 1996). Both papers dealt with the
handling styles of supervisors and managers when dealing with disciplinary
and grievance cases. The first compared styles used to handle discipline and
grievance and the second explored the relative importance of factors that
influence handling styles.
This paper addresses the second of these issues. As well as providing
confirmatory evidence for the results of the earlier study, it sheds further light
on the relative importance of the influencing factors. The paper is divided into
four main parts. The first briefly reviews prior empirical work in the area, and
the second gives details of the research procedures used in this study. The third
part presents an analysis of the data that was gathered and in the final part
tentative conclusions are drawn, and the implications for handling discipline
and grievance cases are traced.
Discipline and grievance handling: a brief review
Since a fuller consideration of the theoretical strands informing the study is
given in earlier papers, the aim here is simply to re-state the essence of the
theory. This is most conveniently addressed by considering discipline and
grievance separately.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
Personnel
Review
29,6
744
Discipline
The most succinct definition of discipline is given by Wheeler as:
Some action taken against an individual who fails to conform to the rules of an organization
of which he is a member (Wheeler, 1976, p. 237).
While this definition tells us that some action is taken against an individual, it
says little about what the action hopes to achieve, what the action is, or how it
is taken. Dealing with these in order, current theory and guides to good practice
clearly state that the aim of discipline is to ``correct future behaviour'', rather
than to take retribution for a rule transgression (ACAS, 1977, 1987; Ashdown
and Baker, 1987). However, although this is clear enough in theory, there are
many variables at work in discipline that can influence its internal dynamics
and outcomes. Thus whether the aim is achieved in practice can crucially
depend on two other features: what action is taken and how it is taken. Both of
these involve social and psychological factors, and the important point is that
action is taken against an individual. This can often be distinctly unpleasant
for the recipient, and because the action is inevitably associated with the
recipient's prior lack of conformity with an organizational rule, the process can
have an uncomfortably close fit with the psychological definition of
punishment, which is:
... the consequence of a behaviour, that reduces the future probability of that behaviour
(Azrin and Holz, 1996, p. 381).
Importantly, psychology makes it all too clear that unless punishment is
applied in a very careful way, it can induce very strong emotional reactions, the
most common of which is future resistance to conformity (Zipfg, 1960). As
such, how things are done can be equally as important as what is done and in
dealing with disciplinary matters, the behavioural style of the supervisor or
manager is potentially one of the most important factors at work. For example,
there is a substantial body of evidence to show that supervisors who avoid
imposing their own perceptions of the matter on subordinates and adopt a non-
threatening, explanatory approach are likely to be much more successful in
achieving the aims of the process (Rollinson et al., 1997; Maier and Danielson,
1956; Gary, 1971; Huberman, 1975; Greer and Labig, 1987).
Grievance
A grievance issue can be defined as:
... a matter submitted by a worker in respect of any measure or situation which directly
affects, or may affect the conditions of employment in the undertaking, when that measure or
situation appears contrary to the provisions of an applicable collective agreement or a
contract of employment, to workrules, or laws or regulations, or to the custom or usage of the
occupation (International Labour Conference Report, 1965, pp. 7-9).
The definition is a very broad one and is sometimes used imprecisely, in a way
that conflicts grievances and disputes (Marsh and Evans, 1973; Singleton,
1975). Strictly speaking, disputes are issues in which employees collectively
To continue reading
Request your trial