Employee Discipline and Managerial Decision-Making Process

Introduction

Decisions are a part of each day for everyone. Some of these decisions are small and insignificant, such as what to eat for breakfast, while others are quite complex and require one to weigh the costs and benefits carefully. Business managers make decisions that affect many people, and they must consider not only the outcomes for themselves but also the opportunities and costs for the entire group or organization. One of the toughest decisions managers must make concerns the issue of discipline. When an employee breaks the rules or acts in a way that could be dangerous to others or reduce the productivity of the group, the manager must decide what course of action is best for everyone.

Consider the following scenario. Dan is a production worker on an assembly line performing electronics assembly work on an auto parts line. He works alongside an equal number of women and men. Recently, several of the women have filed formal complaints that Dan is making sexual innuendoes toward them and that they feel uncomfortable. On checking with the human resources department, it was found that there is a notable coincidence of women calling in sick when they are scheduled to work with Dan. This causes manpower shortages and reduces the overall productivity of the group, and it has been observed that the productivity of that line is below that of the rest of the plant.

Dan himself, however, has never called in sick, has never been late, and is otherwise a model employee. When confronted about the sexual innuendo allegations, Dan indicated that he did not know what the women were referring to. Action must be taken — but what is appropriate in this situation? The following discussion explores possible solutions in light of modern decision-making theory and research.

Programmed decisions occur in response to situations that arise often enough for a set of rules regarding the decision to be developed. One example is determining when to reorder inventory and at what levels. Non-programmed decisions are made in response to situations that are unique, or to problems that are poorly defined and largely unstructured. The situation involving Dan has qualities of both a programmed and a non-programmed decision.

Programmed and Non-Programmed Decisions

The company has strict policies regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, which call for termination on the first offense. According to those rules, Dan should be immediately fired. However, several variables complicate this course of action. First, Dan denies the allegations, and it is possible that the women have a motive unknown to management. Second, this is Dan's first offense of any kind in seven years of employment. Dan has always been a model employee, and the company would lose a significant asset if he were terminated. The decision therefore contains elements of both a programmed and a non-programmed decision. A programmed decision can resemble a non-programmed one when mitigating circumstances are present.

A study by LePine and associates (1998) determined that groups working together on a common task develop standard patterns of interaction among team members. When a non-programmed change was introduced into their process, established routines became problematic. When teams experience repeated success with certain behaviors in a stable problem environment, this generally leads to the creation of routines. This is precisely the effect seen when Dan allegedly began making innuendoes toward the women. The team had been working together without incident until Dan's behavior reportedly changed, creating tension within the group (LePine et al., 1998). It is therefore important for the manager to choose the option that poses the least disruption to the group's established routine so that maximum efficiency can be maintained.

There are many models for making decisions (Peters, 2001). For a manager to make a sound decision, several conditions must be met: all available information — especially regarding risk — must be gathered, goals must be clear, and ambiguity must be reduced. Ambiguity includes a lack of clearly defined goals, undefined alternatives, and insufficient information about outcomes (Peters, 2001). In Dan's case, the goal is clear: management wants Dan to stop making innuendoes and making the women feel uncomfortable, so that production levels remain at or above expectations. Alternatives, however, are less clear and require careful consideration.

The three most widely accepted decision-making models are the Classical Model, the Administrative Model, and the Political Model (Peters, 2001). The model chosen for any particular decision depends on the degree of risk involved, the clarity of goals, and the availability of defined alternatives.

The Classical Model approaches decisions on the basis of intuition and personal preferences. Its effectiveness depends on the certainty of available information and the assumption that alternatives are known (Smithson, 2000). Logic must be applied for the decision to reach its intended goals (Peters, 2001). The classical model is most appropriate for financial decisions or decisions with a high degree of order and structure.

The Administrative Model is used in cases involving non-programmed events, uncertainty, ambiguity in alternatives, or missing information. Two ideas constitute this model. The first is bounded rationality (Peters, 2001) — the recognition that individuals have limits on how rational they can be, and that emotions can override rational thinking (Deutsch, 2000). Facial expressions and nonverbal cues are also important in this assessment (Smith et al., 1998), as are individual perceptions (Greene et al., 1999). In Dan's case, management must consider whether the women's allegations are rooted in logic or are highly emotional in nature, and whether Dan's comments may have been taken out of context. The second idea is satisficing — the tendency of a decision-maker to choose the first solution that satisfies the minimum decision criteria (Peters, 2001).

Decision-Making Models

The Political Model is widely considered the one that most closely resembles the real environment in which managers operate (Peters, 2001). Problems and solutions are subject to significant disagreement, decisions are complex and multifaceted, and coalitions must be formed to resolve conflicts. In Dan's case, the political model would be best utilized to restore cohesion between Dan and the women. As Charbit and Fernandez (2000) note, agents can be motivated by what they perceive as future benefits, making coalition-building a viable strategy for resolution.

Many authors define the steps involved in managerial decision-making (Harpur, 2002). The exact number of steps varies, but the underlying concept is consistent. The first step is to identify the problem and define the eventual goals one wishes to accomplish. The second is to identify the options available for addressing the problem. The third is to evaluate those options in terms of both positive and negative consequences (Harpur, 2002). Many considerations must factor into this evaluation, including the company's goals, its culture and values, who will be affected by the decision, and the short- and long-term consequences of each option (Harpur, 2002). After evaluation, a course of action must be selected, a plan created, and a timeframe for implementation established. These steps apply to nearly any decision in almost any circumstance.

Managers may not always recognize the scope or severity of a problem and may delay making a decision. Sometimes a manager may put off acting because they cannot determine the best course of action, or because they believe the problem will resolve itself. In either case, the decision made is one of inaction. The first step in the decision-making process is to determine that a decision does indeed need to be made.

Before implementing a plan of action, the problem must be clearly defined. The preferred final outcome — the goal — must be determined. The causes of the problem must then be analyzed and clearly identified. This is often difficult, particularly when two conflicting parties are involved, as in the case of Dan and the women. Alternatives cannot be developed until the true cause of a problem is understood. There are many personal differences that must be accounted for in diagnosing causes (Mayer, 2000).

Alternative solutions must be developed before selecting the best course of action. The most effective way to develop alternatives is to brainstorm all possible solutions to the problem. Rarely does a problem have only one solution, and involving multiple people in this process tends to produce the largest number of viable options.

Once alternatives are defined, the next step is to select an appropriate one. Each alternative should be laid out and its advantages and disadvantages discussed directly. Consequences for both individuals and the entire group must be considered. Some alternatives may produce favorable short-term outcomes but negative long-term results, while others may have a longer-term focus. After the correct alternative has been selected, a plan for implementation must be developed. This plan can be phased or implemented immediately, depending on the urgency of the situation.

A critical component of the implementation plan is a built-in mechanism for re-evaluation and assessment. This determines whether the measures have been properly implemented and whether they have had an actual impact on the situation. Such evaluation can take the form of management assessment, employee surveys, or analysis of measurable outcomes.