Evaluate Corporate Disciplinary Action Procedures And Recomm ✓ Solved

Evaluate corporate disciplinary action procedures and recommend the best approach

Today, businesses have a variety of disciplinary action policies at their disposal. For this assignment, you will be asked to research current corporate disciplinary action procedures and determine which ones work best for a specified company. In M2: Assignment 1, you assumed you were a manager in the HR department for WidgetMaker, a large US-based company with offices in several states. For this assignment, you will once again assume you are an HR manager at the same company. You have now been tasked with evaluating the company’s official disciplinary action policy.

As you already know, this firm is a large established company with a large mix of job levels and functions. Using the university online library resources and the Internet, research current corporate disciplinary action procedures and choose two different styles to compare and contrast. For each method, respond to the following: · What steps are taken before terminating an employee? · How are corrective measures taken? · Does the employee have the right to appeal disciplinary decisions? Why or why not? If so, how does the appeal process work? If not, how will disagreements over disciplinary decisions be mediated? · Does one style work better than the other for a specific industry, job function, or level? Please explain. · What legal factors are considered upon termination? What ethical factors are considered? After researching and comparing the policies, make a recommendation as to which system would be the most appropriate for this example company. Should the company have one master plan or should the policy depend upon employee function and/or level? Justify your response. Write your initial response in 300–500 words according to the APA Style, and demonstrate accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In today’s dynamic corporate environment, establishing effective disciplinary action procedures is essential for maintaining organizational integrity, ensuring consistent employee behavior, and minimizing legal risks. This paper compares two prevalent disciplinary action styles—progressive discipline and zero-tolerance policies—and evaluates their applicability within the context of WidgetMaker, a large multi-state corporation with varied job levels and functions. Based on recent research, these approaches differ significantly in their procedural steps, corrective measures, appeal rights, and suitability for different organizational contexts.

Progressive Discipline

The progressive discipline approach follows a step-by-step process, usually starting with verbal warnings, escalating to written warnings, suspensions, and finally termination if necessary. Before dismissing an employee, the process typically involves documented counseling or warnings, providing the employee with opportunities to correct their behavior (Society for Human Resource Management, 2020). Corrective measures are administered incrementally, emphasizing education and improvement rather than punitive action. Employees generally have the right to appeal disciplinary decisions, often through an internal grievance procedure, which offers a structured pathway to dispute resolutions (Gennard & Judge, 2019).

Legally, progressive discipline aligns with employment laws by ensuring that terminations are justified, well-documented, and non-discriminatory (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2022). Ethically, it promotes fairness by giving employees multiple chances to address issues, fostering a positive organizational culture that values development over punishment (Cascio & Boudreau, 2016).

Zero-Tolerance Policy

The zero-tolerance system mandates immediate disciplinary action, including termination, upon the occurrence of specific infractions such as harassment, violence, or theft, often bypassing intermediate steps (Dessler, 2019). Corrective measures are minimal or nonexistent since violations are deemed unacceptable regardless of context. Employees usually do not have the right to appeal immediate dismissals unless stipulated explicitly in company policies (Milkovich, Gerhart, & Newman, 2018).

This approach is suited for industries with high safety or legal compliance standards, like aviation or healthcare, where swift action is vital. Legally, zero-tolerance policies must be carefully developed to avoid discrimination claims, ensuring that all employees are treated equally and that policies are applied consistently (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2022). Ethically, however, such policies may risk perceived unfairness if they do not consider individual circumstances (Boxall & Purcell, 2016).

Comparison and Recommendations

While progressive discipline prioritizes fairness and improvement, it may be slower and less effective in addressing severe or repeated misconduct. Conversely, zero-tolerance policies enable rapid enforcement of rules, crucial where safety is paramount. For WidgetMaker, a hybrid approach could be optimal—adopting progressive discipline for general employee conduct while implementing zero-tolerance procedures for violations with immediate safety or legal implications. Such a dual strategy ensures fairness but also enforces critical standards without delay.

The legal considerations include adherence to employment laws and ensuring non-retaliation. Ethical factors involve fairness, transparency, and respect for employee dignity (Cascio & Boudreau, 2016). A tailored policy based on job function or level might be advantageous; for example, stricter policies could govern managerial roles or safety-sensitive positions. Alternatively, a universal master policy might offer consistency across the organization, reducing ambiguity and potential legal risks.

In conclusion, WidgetMaker should develop a comprehensive, flexible disciplinary framework that balances procedural fairness with operational efficiency. Incorporating both progressive and zero-tolerance elements allows the company to address diverse disciplinary issues efficiently while maintaining a fair and legally compliant environment.

References

• Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2016). Strategy and human resource management. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2016). The search for global competence: From international HR to talent management. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 103-114.
• Dessler, G. (2019). Human resource management (16th ed.). Pearson.
• Gennard, J., & Judge, G. (2019). Managing employment relations. CIPD Publishing.
• Milkovich, G. T., Gerhart, B., & Newman, J. M. (2018). Compensation (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Society for Human Resource Management. (2020). Guide to progressive discipline. SHRM.
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022). Laws enforced by EEOC. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws