Supervisor and manager styles in handling discipline and grievance. Part two ‐ approaches to handling discipline and grievance

Date01 August 1996
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/00483489610123245
Published date01 August 1996
Pages38-55
AuthorDerek Rollinson,Caroline Hook,Margaret Foot,Janet Handley
Subject MatterHR & organizational behaviour
Personnel
Review
25,4
38
Supervisor and manager
styles in handling discipline
and grievance
Part two – approaches to handling
discipline and grievance
Derek Rollinson, Caroline Hook, Margaret Foot
and Janet Handley
School of Business, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
Introduction
This paper follows on from the previous one in the series and reports the
findings of a research investigation into the handling styles of supervisors and
managers when dealing with disciplinary and grievance issues. The first paper
in the series compared styles of handling discipline and grievance cases and
resulted in a rejection of the idea that a supervisor or manager is likely to have
a common approach to both types of issue. This paper, which takes the analysis
one stage further and sheds light on the relative importance of some of the
factors that most influence the styles adopted, is divided into four major
sections. The first gives a brief review of prior empirical work in the area, in
order to identify factors that could influence handling styles. In the second part
details of the analysis used to examine the relative effects of potentially
influential factors is given and in the third, the results of the analysis are
presented together with tentative conclusions. The final part outlines the
implications of these conclusions for the training of supervisors and managers
in the handling of discipline and grievance cases.
Disciplinary and grievance handling: a theoretical consideration
In procedural terms, processes used to handle discipline and grievance issues
have some similarity and for this reason, the two types of issue are often
portrayed as complementary faces of industrial justice. For example, a
commonly expressed view is that discipline is a process of last resort that can
be used by a manager to restore an employee’s behaviour to that which is within
acceptable limits, if and when an employee fails to observe his/her side of the
employment bargain and that grievance is a similar process that can be evoked
by an employee against a manager for a similar purpose. However, any
similarity is purely in appearance and the two types of issue are quite different
in other respects. Space precludes an extended discussion of this matter, which
Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 4,
1996, pp. 38-55. © MCB
University Press, 0048-3486 The authors would like to express their grateful thanks for the helpful comments
provided by anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper.
Handling
discipline and
grievance
39
in any event is set out in detail in an earlier edition of this journal[1] and is
briefly re-stated in the first paper in this series. Nevertheless, it means that any
theoretical consideration of factors that are likely to influence handling styles
must commence by considering discipline and grievance separately.
Discipline
Perhaps the most succinct definition of discipline is:
Some action taken against an individual who fails to conform to the rules of an organization
of which he is a member[2, p. 237].
While the definition is useful in telling us that some action is taken, it says little
about three other features: what action is taken, how it is taken and what this
hopes to achieve.
Dealing with these in reverse order, current theory and guides to good
practice clearly lay down the aim of discipline as “correcting future behaviour”,
rather than taking retribution for a rule transgression (see for example[3-5]).
Although this is clear enough in theory, it can be somewhat harder to achieve in
practice. Despite the apparently straightforward nature of the disciplinary
process there are many variables at work that can influence its outcomes and
internal dynamics. Indeed, whether the aim is achieved can depend crucially on
the other two features: what action is taken and how it is taken.
Both of these involve social and psychological factors and while space
precludes an extended examination of the psychology of discipline, an
important point should be noted. Action is essentially taken against an
individual and can often be distinctly unpleasant for the recipient. Moreover, the
action will inevitably be associated with the recipient’s prior nonconformance to
a rule, which means that the process has a remarkably close fit to the
psychological definition of punishment. More importantly, psychology makes it
all too clear that if punishment is not applied in a very careful way, it can induce
very strong emotional reactions, the most common of which is future resistance
to conformity[6]. While this outcome is not inevitable, its possibility means that
how things are done can be equally as important as what is done. Therefore, 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 which suggests that a supervisor who
avoids imposing her/his own perceptions on the subordinate and adopts a non-
threatening, explanatory approach is likely to be much more successful in
achieving the aims of the process (see for example[7-10]).
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[11].

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT