Rules are for breaking?
PARTLY because he was having a bad day, and partly because it was his afternoon habit, Mr. Mathur put his head down on the table. Not to take a nap as such, but because resting his troubled head on a cold mahogany surface on a warm day felt exceedingly comfortable. Unfortunately for him, his new boss happened to be passing by. He was the sort of gentleman who could not tolerate indiscipline in anybody but himself. Idling away company time was poison to productivity and he did everything he could to suck that toxin out of his workforce and contain it within the boundaries of his office cabin.
He was what one could call (at gunpoint if necessary) a man of lofty ideals. So, to uphold that loftiness he decided to take some action. He presented Mr. Mathur (whose bad day was just about to get worse), with a show-cause notice. Now, there are a few things to be considered here - a.) Mr.. Mathur wasn't quite sure what cause he was supposed to show - he had always rested his troubled head on tables and nobody had complained - so far; and b.) Mr. Mathur's boss was not allowed to issue show cause notices to employees willy-nilly.
Regardless of the latter fact, Mr.Mathur's boss pressed on. When there was no response either in the form of apology or denial from Mr.Mathur and he continued to smile dim-wittedly at him every morning, Mr.Mathur's boss decided enough was enough and put his case before the management.
The management, as is its wont, conferenced, conspired and finally complied. Mr. Mathur was given a warning and Mr.Mathur's boss was told by the HR honcho to `hand back that pad of letterheads you stole from my office, you snitch... '
Anyway, to cut a long story short, Mr.Mathur found another job and so did his colleagues and they lived happily ever after. Their old company on the other hand did not. Why? Attrition. Lots and lots of it.
The question now is: who contributed to it the most? If we were to play a blame game, who would the finger of fault point to first? Mr.Mathur or his boss? Maybe both to some extent. But if you stop to think about it, there is only one contender here - bad and unclear management policy, and of course the HR honcho who let Mr.Mathur's boss steal the pad of letterheads from his office.
Defeating
There are few things as defeating as unclear management policy when it comes to disciplining employees. The fact is many managers are undecided in their own minds when it comes to dealing with employees. Should you handle them with velvet gloves or should you use the rod, the whip and the pink slip? Some managers try and combine both approaches in the hope that it will be the elusive compromise between the devil and the deep sea.
As a matter of fact, that is the approach that is least likely to work. People, being people, like to know where they are going. They hate running into lampposts that have no business obstructing their path. In other words, they want to know that if they come to the office two hours late they are going to get slapped on the wrist because that is the rule, not because the boss was in a bad mood and needed to vent his anger on somebody.
And most of all, employees like to know that the same rule applies to everybody, regardless of how much pull they have with their superiors.
Punishment is such a harsh word. Not as harsh as discipline perhaps, but harsh nevertheless. This is probably why so many prisons are called correctional facilities. It is probably a more politically correct term. So, remember, when there are employees who need to be corrected, it helps to have a well-defined set of rules in place to do it with. It is worthwhile, however to note a few things when these rules have to be made up:
(a). They must be reasonable: the punishment must fit the crime. An employee comes late to work and leaves early - fine him half a day's pay an employee sells company secrets to a rival - terminate him with extreme prejudice. Not the other way round.
(b). Justice and equality: Very important. As we have said before, the same rules should apply to everybody. Apart from being good for morale and reducing the levels of resentment and jealousy it makes the penalty justifiable.
(c). Clarity: Rules by nature, demand it. They must be clear, concise and practicable. The very purpose of a rule or a regulation is to deter wrongdoers from doing any more wrong. And without clarity, that is almost impossible.
Perhaps the most important aspect of discipline is that it is infectious. People observe it because other people observe it. In that sense it is a lot like a traffic signal. If one motorist cuts a red light, every motorist follows suit. But then the vice versa is also true. If two motorists wait for the green signal, nine times out of ten, everybody else does it as well. All you have to do is make sure that the rules are clear.
PETER THUTHURI
faqs@cnkonline.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Opportunities
