Words: 4620
Managing Employee Misbehaviour for Promoting Business Ethics Workplace misbehaviour: Any intentional action by members of organizations that defies and violates Shared organizational norms and expectations, and/or Core societal values, mores and standards of proper conduct (Vardi and Wiener, 1996, p. 153). Misbehaviour in this sense is also said to be about breaching broader, yet far from clearly defined or fully shared societal norms or moral order.
In industrial sociology key writers on misbehaviour ??? Ackroyd and Thompson (1999, p. 2) ??? borrow Sprouse’s (1992, p. 3) definition of sabotage ??? “anything you do at work you are not supposed to do” ??? to define misbehaviour, although questions remain about how useful this definition is. Perspectives on misbehaviour Misbehaviour is also a phenomena discussed in several other academic disciplines.
For instance, in gender studies, we see quite a distinct dimension of misbehaviour emerging. Misbehaviour in gender studies tends to concern males defending masculine identities in an organizational context and how masculinity is in reality a crucial, yet often hidden dimension of a broader organizational identity (Collinson and Collinson, 1989; DiTomaso, 1989; Levin, 2001).
An account of men trying to preserve the dominance of a masculine identity, sponsored implicitly by senior management, is outlined in the following passage taken from ethnography of a trading floor of a large, American commodities exchange: When the working environment becomes less active, the more overtly sexualized repertoire of joking and getting along emerges. Men and women use jokes to pass time, fit in and relieve tension, but a direct result of men’s sexual banter is to facilitate group solidarity among men to the exclusion of women.
Strong heterosexual joking is predicated on men being the sexual agents of jokes and women being the objects (Levin, 2001, p. 126). Further dimensions of gender-related misbehaviour include women subverting dominant masculine identities (Cockburn, 1991; Game and Pringle, 1983; Gutek, 1989; Pollert, 1981), women taking advantage of their sex appeal to get around male supervisors (Pollert, 1981) and female flight attendants feigning responses to lurid comments from male passengers (Hochschild, 2003).
Further details of Gutek’s (1989) research highlights the many ways in which sexuality can be the spur for a range of misbehaviour: More common than sexual coercion from either sex are sexual jokes, use of explicit terms to describe work situations, sexual comments to co-workers, and display of sexual posters and pictures engaged in by men at work (Sex and sports, some observers claim, are the two metaphors of business. ) The use of sex can be more subtle than either hostile sexual remarks or sexual jokes.
Although this tactic is often assumed to be used exclusively by women, some men, too, may feign sexual interest to gain some work-related advantage (1989, p. 63-64). Commentary on what could be interpreted to be misbehaviour is also a feature of industrial relations research. In industrial relations theorists seem to view misbehaviour as a lesser version of strike action, or action short of strike action (Bean, 1975; Blyton and Turnbull, 2004; Hyman, 1981; Nichols and Armstrong, 1976). From this perspective, misbehaviour is taken to represent the actions of unorganized employees.
In effect, misbehaviour is synonymous with a widespread and increasing inability of employees to offer a coherent and organized response to management strategies (Beynon, 1984). As such, industrial relations theorists link misbehaviour to record low levels of strike activity (Hale, 2007). Moreover, some theorists believe acts such as sabotage ??? in the form of grievance bargaining or deliberate poor workmanship ??? are intimately bound up in the labour process (Zabala, 1989). Research work in Ethics: 2008 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ETHICS SURVEY in US: National Government Ethics Survey Shows Employee Misconduct is High Key Findings
On all levels of government, there is a lack of programs and incentives to encourage ethical behavior, the report says ???Six in 10 government employees saw at least one form of misconduct in the last 12 months. ???One in 4 employees work in an environment conducive to misconduct. According to ERC, this includes strong pressure to compromise standards, a presence of situations which invite wrongdoing, and a culture where employees’ personal values conflict with their values at work. ???Overall strength of ethical cultures is declining. ???Almost one-third of employees do not report misconduct. More than one-third of government employees believe government does not demonstrate its values through socially responsible decision-making. Levels of Government Federal Level ??? The number of incidences of misconduct observed is slightly lower, but reporting is still comparatively low. Only 30 percent of federal government organizations have ethics and compliance programs, and only 10 percent have strong ethical cultures. State Level ??? Workers are most vulnerable to ethical risks as there are more reports of employees who have observed misconduct multiple times.
Still 30 percent do not report misconduct to management. Local Level ??? Employees are the least likely to know the ethical risks since fewer resources are put in place to encourage ethical behavior. Local government organizations have the lowest levels of reporting misconduct, only 67% are reporting. “In order to encourage high ethical standards within our organizations, we first have to provide an environment that is conducive to ethical behavior,” says Sharon Allen, chairman of the board at Deloitte & Touche. However, management and leadership have a huge responsibility in setting examples for their organizations and living the values they preach if they want to sustain a culture of ethics. ” The report, “2007 Deloitte & Touche USA LLP Ethics & Workplace,” is based on responses from 1,041 U. S. adult workers. Harris Interactive conducted the research in February on behalf of Deloitte & Touche. The top two factors contributing to the promotion of an ethical workplace are the behavior of management and direct supervisors, as chosen by 42% and 36% of respondents, respectively.
More surprisingly, emphasis of criminal penalties doesn’t seem to do much to deter unethical behavior, nor does ethics training. There is, however, a strong relationship between ethical actions at work and a healthy level of work-life balance. In fact, 91% of those employees surveyed agreed that workers are more likely to behave ethically at the office when they have a good work-life balance. Allen explains why this may be so. “If someone invests in all of their time and energy into their jobs, it may have the unintended consequence of making them depend on their jobs for everything ??? including their sense of personal worth.
This makes it even harder to make a good choice when faced with an ethical dilemma if they believe it will impact professional success. ” Categories of Employee Misbehaviour: a. Production deviance ??? includes behaviors that waste time and resources. b. Property deviance ??? involves either theft or destruction of facility or residents’ property. c. Normative deviance ??? generally involves talk that hurts or belittles others. d. Personal aggression ??? mostly involves hitting, fighting, or sexual harassment. Common Employee Misbehaviour: Fighting Theft from the employer or colleagues Fraud or falsifying work documents
Accessing and/or distributing pornographic emails or websites Deliberately damaging company property Serious bullying or harassment Bringing the employer into serious disrepute Serious infringement of health and safety rules Serious failure to follow reasonable instructions. Causes of Employee Misbehaviour: Poor Employee selection and orientation procedures Poorly defined employee expectations Poorly understood employee expectations Improperly selected and trained supervisors Incorrect philosophy of discipline Effects of Employee Misbehaviour: oInefficiency oIncreased costs oUnhealthy and unsafe work environment
Employee Misbehaviour ??? To be Punished or leaving it ignored: Handling employee misconduct is a very critical task to be performed by the senior managers. Misconduct and other offensive behaviors often lead to decreased levels of productivity as they affect the individual performance of the employees. To manage discipline among employees, every company opts for a discipline policy which describes the approach it will follow to handle misconduct. When dealing with employee misconduct, companies must keep careful mind of the legislative and common law legal framework that governs the employment relationship.
Regard must be made to relevant legislation such as the Employment Standards Act 2000, Ontario Human Rights Code, Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act (reprisal provisions) and to principles such as constructive and wrongful dismissal. To effectively manage the employment relationship and deal with potential misconduct, employers are well advised to develop and maintain reasonable rules of conduct and performance expectations. Communicate these to employees and ensure consistent application and enforcement. Provide appropriate counseling and training to your workforce.
Carefully consider each incident of misconduct and the appropriate reaction. Avoid knee jerk instantaneous reactions. These only serve to increase potential employer liability. Management needs to conduct a preliminary investigation. Once the company has completed the investigation, the manager should make the employee aware of the findings. Once again, the manager can ask for the employee’s side of the story. Using this evidence, management, with the help of a Human Resources representative, must decide what to do. They must decide how they should discipline the employee or whether they should fire the worker.
To conclude, Very surely an action is required quickly if left unattended; misconduct will quickly demoralize the other employees too. While everyone reacts differently, even the top performers are usually going to be the first casualties of demoralization. Dealing with Employee Misbehaviour: The employer must investigate the matter fully (speak to witnesses, collect documentary evidence etc). The employer must also give the employee an opportunity to explain himself. The employee should sufficiently know what the case and evidence is against him before any hearing.
Prior warning of the hearing date and that the disciplinary action is under consideration. Give the employee the opportunity to call witnesses. Inform the individual he has the right to be accompanied by a colleague (or a trade union official). Inform the employee he has the right of an appeal. Employee’s rights If an employee has been with the employer for over a year they have unfair dismissal protection. Although employees have the right not to be dismissed for an unfair reason, the conduct of an employee is expressly stated to be a potentially fair reason to dismiss.
Employees also have the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sex, race or disability. This would include being singled out for a warning about their conduct or receiving harsher penalties than other employees would receive. Employees have the right not to be dismissed in breach of their contractual terms. For example, failure to follow a contractual procedure may result in a claim of breach of contract. Employees are entitled to be dismissed on notice (unless for gross misconduct). Failure to do so entitles the employee to claim damages for breach of contract. This type of claim is also called ‘wrongful dismissal’.
Employees should be made aware, either in their contract of employment or in disciplinary procedures what are the likely consequences if they break the guidelines the company has laid down in relation to their conduct. Employers must be consistent. If other employees have previously committed the same offence but have not been dismissed it may be difficult to justify dismissal on a subsequent occasion. Certain offences are contrary to acceptable conduct that discipline is readily accepted or justified upon review regardless of whether there was any prior communication or warning to the employee.
Theft Intentional destruction of company property Total refusal to perform safe work Gross or intentional endangerment of the safety of coworkers. Excessive absenteeism is another factor that can lead to termination only after a series of lesser penalties. Dismissal for misconduct to be reasonable: Even though an employer may have strong suspicions that an individual is guilty of misconduct, this may not be enough. Although an employer does not have to show an employee committed the offence “beyond all reasonable doubt”, there is a threshold that must be reached.
In particular: ???The employer must believe that the employee is responsible for the conduct in question. ???The employer must have reasonable grounds for this belief. ???The employer must carry out as much of an investigation into the matter as is reasonable. Charging an Employee with a criminal offence: ???The employer does not have to wait for the outcome of police investigations or criminal trial. ???The employer should hold its own investigation into the matter. ???The employee’s rights to have this matter investigated by his employer and to present his side of the story remain regardless of the fact that he is charged by the police.
Out of office misconduct: ???Generally, employees will only be subject to the company’s disciplinary rules and procedures during their office hours or when they represent the company. ???In certain circumstances an employee’s behaviour may be subject to the employer’s scrutiny if it is deemed to be likely to impact on the performance of his contract or the reputation of the employer. Out of office misconduct must be particularly serious to warrant disciplinary action and the behaviour should also relate to the employee’s ability (or perceived ability) to do his job. Disciplinary action
The type of disciplinary action that is taken will depend on the employer’s disciplinary procedures and the circumstances surrounding the misconduct. The employer will have to follow its written guidelines regarding certain types of misconduct. If historically an employer has always been lenient on a particular matter an Employment Tribunal is likely to find the employer has acted unreasonably and unfairly dismissed an individual if it suddenly decides to invoke its disciplinary procedures in disciplining individuals without warning. Warning tiers in a disciplinary procedure ???Usually employers will decide to issue a first warning orally.
This is appropriate if it is a minor infringement that cannot be dealt with on an informal basis. The employee should be told that this is the first step in the disciplinary procedure and why he is receiving the warning. At this point he should also be informed of his right of appeal against the decision. Although oral warnings will be kept on an employee’s personnel file, they should be disregarded for further disciplinary purposes after a specific period of time. ???If an employer regards an infringement as being more serious then the employee should be given a formal written warning.
Again an employee should be given details of the reason for the warning as well as what is required from the individual in the future and the allotted time scale for improvement. Employees should have a right of appeal. Employees also must be warned what penalty there will be if after the allotted time the employer does think there has been a satisfactory improvement. The written warning should also be kept on the employee’s personnel file but cannot be considered for disciplinary procedures after a specific period of time. A final written warning is appropriate if there has been a failure to either improve or change conduct while the earlier warning is still ‘live’. This type of warning can also be used if there is a one-off occurrence of misconduct that is deemed by the employer to be sufficiently serious. As always the final written warning should provide details of the misconduct, warn that failure to rectify the situation may lead to dismissal or some other disciplinary action which is short of dismissal (which is explained below). Again employees must be told of their right to appeal.
The written warning can only remain live for a specified period of time after which point it must be disregarded, no matter how serious the misconduct. ???Disciplinary action short of dismissal may include a transfer, demotion, loss of seniority, suspension without pay or loss of increment. An employer cannot take these sanctions unless there is a specific provision in the employee’s contract. ???If an employer decides to dismiss (either because of gross misconduct or failure to rectify behaviour following a final written warning) the employee should be informed as soon as possible of the decision, as well as the reasons for the dismissal.
He should also know the date their employment will terminate and the period of notice. An employee should also be told of the fact that he has the right to appeal as well as how he can make that appeal and to whom. Employers should also confirm the decision to dismiss in writing. If an employee has at least one year’s continuous service they can request a written statement of particulars of reasons for their dismissal. ???General considerations for employers when disciplining ???A good disciplinary procedure will enable an employer to take appropriate steps in the event of misconduct of an employee. The disciplinary procedure should be in writing Consequences of Disciplinary actions: Union Grievance Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Complaint (EEOC) Law Suits Employee Buyouts Having to Reinstate Employee Embarrassment to Leadership Leadership Looses Credibility Employees Don’t Respect the process Creating an Ethical climate in the Organization to avoid Misconduct: The ethical climate of an organization is the shared set of understandings about what is correct behavior and how ethical issues will be handled. This climate sets the tone for decision making at all levels and in all circumstances.
Some of the factors that may be emphasized in different ethical climates of organizations are (Hunt, 1991; Schneider and Rentsch, 1991): * Personal self-interest * Company profit * Operating efficiency * Individual friendships * Team interests * Social responsibility * Personal morality * Rules and standard procedures * Laws and professional codes As suggested by the prior list, the ethical climate of different organizations can emphasize different things. In the Johnson & Johnson example just cited, the ethical climate supported doing the right thing due to social responsibility–regardless of the cost.
In other organizations–perhaps too many–concerns for operating efficiency may outweigh social considerations when similarly difficult decisions are faced. When the ethical climate is not clear and positive, ethical dilemmas will often result in unethical behavior. In such instances, an organization’s culture also can predispose its members to behave unethically. For example, recent research has found a relationship between organizations with a history of violating the law and continued illegal behavior (Baucus and Near, 1991). Thus, some organizations have a culture that reinforces illegal activity.
In addition, some firms are known to selectively recruit and promote employees who have personal values consistent with illegal behavior; firms also may socialize employees to engage in illegal acts as a part of their normal job duties (Conklin, 1977; Geis, 1977). For instance, in his account of cases concerning price fixing for heavy electrical equipment, Geis noted that General Electric removed a manager who refused to discuss prices with a competitor from his job and offered his successor the position with the understanding that management believed he would behave as expected and engage in price-fixing activities (Geis, 1977, p. 24; Baucus and Near, 1991). Pressure, opportunity, and predisposition can all lead to unethical activities; however, organizations must still take a proactive stance to promote an ethical climate. The final section provides some useful suggestions available to organizations for creating a more ethical climate. PROMOTING AN ETHICAL CLIMATE: Ethical Philosophies and Employee Behavior: Recent literature has suggested several strategies for promoting ethical behavior in organizations (Adler and Bird, 1988; Burns, 1987; Harrington, 1991; Raelin, 1987; Stead etal. , 1990).
First, chief executives should encourage ethical consciousness in their organizations from the top down showing the support and care about ethical practices. Second, formal processes should be used to support and reinforce ethical behavior. For example, internal regulation may involve the use of codes of corporate ethics, and the availability of appeals processes. Finally, it is recommended that the philosophies of top managers as well as immediate supervisors focus on the institutionalization of ethical norms and practices that are incorporated into all organizational levels.
The philosophies of top managers as well as immediate supervisors represent a critical organizational factor influencing the ethical behavior of employees (Stead etal. , 1990). Research over a period of more than twenty-five years clearly support the conclusion that the ethical philosophies of management have a major impact on the ethical behavior of their followers employees (Arlow and Ulrich, 1980; Baumhart, 1961; Brenner and Molander, 1977; Carroll, 1978; Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979; Posner and Schmidt, 1984; Touche Ross, 1988; Vitell and Festervand, 1987; Worrell etal. 1985). Nielsen (1989) has stressed the importance of managerial behavior in contributing to ethical or unethical behavior. According to Nielsen, managers behaving unethically contrary to their ethical philosophies represent a serious limit to ethical reasoning in the firm. Much of the research cited in the above paragraph implicitly and explicitly states that ethical philosophies will have little impact on employees’ ethical behavior unless they are supported by managerial behaviors that are consistent with these philosophies.
Managers represent significant others in the organizational lives of employees and as such often have their behavior modeled by employees. One of the most basic of management principles states that if a certain behavior is desired, it should be reinforced. No doubt, how ethical behavior is perceived by individuals and reinforced by an organization determines the kind of ethical behavior exhibited by employees. As a result, if business leaders want to promote ethical behavior they must accept more responsibility for establishing their organization’s reinforcement system.
Research in ethical behavior strongly supports the conclusion that if ethical behavior is desired, the performance measurement, appraisal and reward systems must be modified to account for ethical behavior (Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979; Trevino, 1986; Worrell et al. , 1985). According to Nielsen (1988, p. 730): In many cases, mangers choose to do, go along with or ignore the unethical… because they want to avoid the possibility of punishments (or) to gain rewards. Ethical Culture:
Organizations and their managers must understand that the above recommendations are key components in the development and maintenance of an ethically-oriented organizational culture. Organizations can also enhance an ethically-oriented culture by paying particular attention to principled organizational dissent. Principled organizational dissent is an important concept linking organizational culture to ethical behavior. Principled organizational dissent is the effort by individuals in the organization to protest the status quo because of their objection on ethical grounds, to some practice or policy (Graham, 1986).
Organizations committed to promoting an ethical climate should encourage principled organizational dissent instead of punishing such behavior. Organizations should also provide more ethics training to strengthen their employees’ personal ethical framework. That is, organizations must devote more resources to ethics training programs to help its members clarify their ethical frameworks and practice self-discipline when making ethical decisions in difficult circumstances.
What follows is a useful seven-step checklist that organizations should use to help their employees in dealing with an ethical dilemma (Schermerhorn, 1989; Otten, 1986): Helping employees in dealing with Ethical Dilemma: (1) Recognize and clarify the dilemma. (2) Get all the possible facts. (3) List your options–all of them. (4) Test each option by asking: “Is it legal? Is it right? Is it beneficial? ” (5) Make your decision. (6) Double check your decision by asking: “How would I feel if my family found out about this? How would I feel if my decision was printed in the local newspaper? ” (7) Take action.
An effective organizational culture should encourage ethical behavior and discourage unethical behavior. Admittedly, ethical behavior may “cost” the organization. An example might be the loss of sales when a multinational firm refuses to pay a bribe to secure business in a particular country. Certainly, individuals might be reinforced for behaving unethically (particularly if they do not get caught). In a similar fashion, an organization might seem to gain from unethical actions. For example, a purchasing agent for a large corporation might be bribed to purchase all needed office supplies from a particular supplier.
However, such gains are often short-term rather than long-term in nature. In the long run, an organization cannot operate if its prevailing culture and values are not congruent with those of society. This is just as true as the observation that, in the long run, an organization cannot survive unless it produces goods and services that society wants and needs. Thus an organizational culture that promotes ethical behavior is not only more compatible with prevailing cultural values, but, in fact, makes good sense.
Although much remains to be learned about why ethical behavior occurs in organizations and creating and maintaining organizational cultures that encourage ethical behavior, organizations can benefit from the following suggestions: Maintaining organizational cultures that encourage ethical behavior: ** Be realistic in setting values and goals regarding employment relationships. Do not promise what the organization cannot deliver. ** Encourage input throughout the organization regarding appropriate values and practices for implementing the cultures. Choose values that represent the views of employees at all levels of the organization. * Do not automatically opt for a “strong” culture. Explore methods to provide for diversity and dissent, such as grievance or complaint mechanisms or other internal review procedures. ** Insure that a whistle-blowing and/or ethical concerns procedure is established for internal problem-solving (Harrington, 1991). ** Provide ethics training programs for all employees. These programs should explain the underlying ethical and legal (Drake and Drake, 1988) principles and present practical aspects of carrying our procedural guidelines. Understand that not all ethical situations are clear-cut.
Like many basic business situations, the organization should recognize that there are ambiguous, grey areas where ethical tradeoffs may be necessary. More importantly, some situations have no simple solution (Cooke, 1991). ** Integrate ethical decision-making into the performance appraisal process. Responsibilities of Employers in accordance with managing the behaviour of Employees: ???treat all employees equally; ???give consideration to the employee’s general work record including their length of service, position and whether there are any special circumstances; ???ensure incidents are dealt with without undue delay; ensure the proceedings (including any statements from witnesses and records) be kept confidential; ???specify what disciplinary sanctions the company may take; ???state who has authority within the company to take each level of disciplinary action; ???ensure employees are informed of the allegations against them as well as any relevant documentation before the date of any hearing; ???ensure that employees have the right to state their case before any decision is reached; ???allow employees to be accompanied either by a colleague or if appropriate, a trade union official; ???ensure that the sanctions are proportionate to the misconduct; ???ensure that allegations will be carefully investigated; ???ensure employees are given an explanation of any sanction; and ???Specify that there is a right to appeal as well as how and when this must be taken. Finally…To conclude… Ethical behavior among the employees can be inculcated by adopting the following principles of ethical climate. oMake the expectations clear oTreat the people employed as if they are adults, which they are. oSpend time meeting with staff members regularly oSevere discipline procedures may back fire. oMake all policies and procedures available to all employees. oEncourage open communication between you and the people who report to you. Human beings prefer to follow their own doctrines- therefore management should be aware that difficulties may crop up and should formulate friendly implementation of policies. ” No man is fit to command another that cannot command himself” – William Penn References: 1. http://www. ethicsworld. org/ethicsandemployees/nbes. php 2. http://www. michaelpage. co. uk/content. html? pageId=15676 3. Managing misconduct By Rob Eldridge of Berwin Leighton Paisner 4. http://www. employeeterminationguidebook. com/ 5. http://www. lbwlawyers. com/publications/employeemisconduct. php 6. http://www. slideshare. net/meetsantanudas/managing-employee-discipline 7. http://www. fsa. usda. gov/FSA/hrdapp? area=home=mgrs=dem 8. http://www. employeemisconduct. com/ 9. Edward J.
Tully December 1997 Misconduct, Corruption, Abuse of Power– What Can the Chief Do? 10. http://www. streetdirectory. com/travel_guide/20341/corporate_matters/how_employee_misconduct_affects_all_worker_productivity. html 11. Belt Tightening Tactics Linked to Increases in Employee Misconduct April 27, 2010 by Amy Coates Madsen 12. http://standardsforexcellenceinstitute. wordpress. com/page/2/ 13. W. Edward Stead, Dan L. Worrell and Jean Garner Stead An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations Journal of Business Ethics Volume 9, Number 3, 233-242 14. Ethical behavior starts at the top By Amy Schurr, Network World April 24, 2007 12:05 AM ET