Profile of the Disciplinary Authority

Introduction - Role Perception of the Disciplinary Authority
in Modern Business Organizations

To the delinquent officer, who faces the ordeal of a departmental inquiry, the main focus of attention is towards the Presenting officer. He may feel that the PO is the trouble-giver. The PO is perceived as having bent on a hostile agenda and eager to inflict injury to the interests of the delinquent officer. Next is the inquiry officer, who is a dilemma and whose mind it is difficult to fathom. But the delinquent officer seldom realises that the person actually conducting the Inquiry is in the background. The person to ultimately decide his disciplinary case one way or other is the disciplinary authority, and that the IO and PO are only his field deputies placed at the "site". What really is the mission and role of the unseen Disciplinary Authority? Is he a fear-inspiring threat? Why does he interest in punishing employees for work-deficiency and skill-inadequacy equating these shortcomings as "misconduct", like the traditional school master applying his cane mercilessly on erring students', for their fault they are not up-to-date with the lessons already taught. Does knowledge transfer and percolate itself from giver to receiver instantly and stay firm with the receiver?

In fact the disciplinary authority should be primarily concerned with the state of discipline, purity and cleanliness of the workforce in the organization as a whole, and thereafter with handling individually of stray cases of erring employees, as the means towards achieving the main goal. The means employed become fruitless, when the overall objectives turn a wild dream. Thus there can be no gain in punishing employees, unless it acts as a deterrent and a preventive measure, secures overall purity and integrity in the organization. If the goal can be secured through positive steps, recourse should first be towards the same. Positive steps includes employee- selection, training, motivation, counseling etc. It also includes performance appraisal, review, advice, warning, caution etc. when required.

Obviously an employee is, inherently a productive asset. Otherwise he would not have been recruited. However his efficiency and sense of commitment may deteriorate in stages after appointment. Initially the productivity of the employee may start eroding and deficiency in performance may creep in, but he may still be an asset. In the next stage, after further erosion he turns a net liability. In the extreme, or last stage he poses a threat, as he is unreliable and untrustworthy. HRD policies should ensure that you select and recruit the most productive persons for employment and look after them well, such that they always remain highly productive and this productivity grows along with their tenure of service. This should be the objective of HRD.

An Employee is a human being, and when selected initially he was in the first stage. He has qualities to grow, to stay stagnant or to decay, based on how he is developed and utilized. How he degenerates to the second, third or fourth stages? If the root causes can be detected, acted appropriately and plugged, instead of decline, he is made to grow and develop, this is the positive substitute of discipline enforcement, and an achievement without pains. In the next phase, curing therapy can be tried in stage 2 and to some extent in stage 3, but not in stage 4. Disciplinary punishment of the most rigorous category deserves to be applied in the case of 4th-stage employees, when the occasion demands.

If we look precisely in today's corporate world characteristic of its global perception, discipline management has to be more than merely securing purity and cleanliness. We need a vibrant and quality-conscious work-force capable of functioning efficiently in well-knit Task Teams and Work-groups, as an assurance to stand and successfully realise the business objectives, and the corporate mission of the organization. Discipline management should therefore be positioned as the vehicle to secure the zeal and commitment of the employees, their willingness to identify themselves with the primary aims and purposes of the organization. The ultimate role of the disciplinary authority is to bring about the group synergy, group morale (representing universal job satisfaction) and the active participation of the employees as a team, merging personal objectives with the corporate goals, endowed with commitment for quality and acceptance of the customer charter of the organization, as their own goal. The Disciplinary Authority may handle individual cases for breach of discipline only as part or as a concomitant of the overall objective. Conducting departmental inquiries and awarding punishment in stray cases of employee-misbehaviour is only the last or a default function, that of handling exceptions, where exceptions should occur very rarely or should never be allowed to take place. This is possible if the objective of ensuring services with zero-level errors is aimed and pursued vigorously and achieved. This is possible only with total cooperation of the employees. In other words Quality should be accepted as a tradition of both management and by employees. It is obvious that while misbehaviour and recklessness of employees can be curbed by punishment, the qualities of developing "Care & Attention", imbibing the culture of Task Teams and Work Groups, which brings about performance-synergy cannot be brought about by the negative process of punishing employees.

Employees should act with "good faith". Here good faith implies two attributes, the first is "honesty of purpose" and the second and the equally important is "due care and attention". This is the definition given to good faith in the "Indian Penal Code" by Lord Macaulay, who drafted it, as the Law member of the Governor-General-in Council, more than 13 decades back.[Sec.52 Indian Penal Code -"Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention"]

Today's corporate organizations function with a global perspective. Acute level of competition faced by them results that only the best managed corporates stay in the field and are able to meet the demands of the customers for quality products. Organizations in turn depend on the possession of knowledge resources as their prime source of sustenance, termed as their intangible capital, that can give them an edge over their rivals in the field. This intellectual capital of the organization is implicitly held in its possession. It is in fact direct hold of the employees of the organization, who now are being referred as "knowledge workers". Part of it is only transferred to the organization pool as 'structural capital', and held in databases and manuals.