Case Analysis and Recommendation - Research Paper Example

? Disciplinary Procedures in the GSD: A Case Analysis First Middle Initial, al Affiliation Disciplinary Procedures in the GSD: A Case Analysis Problem Definition Anwar Bin Abdulla Al Shared, Head of the Public Relations Unit of Abu Dhabi’s Government Services Department (GSD), was recommended for a disciplinary action for several counts of violations of the company rules and regulations. He was accused of coming late for work on February 2nd and 25th, being absent on December 25th—all during the calendar year 2007, refusal of assigned tasks, and leaving the workplace without authorization on office hours. The recommendation was prepared in writing by Abdullah Murad Haydar, Head of the Hospitality Services Section and forwarded through an internal email system to the Human Resources Division by Khalid Al Sahib, Director of the Public Relations Division. The issue started on 11 March 2008, when Shared refused to participate in a GSD sponsored event to attend to a family obligation. Haydar though, his direct supervisor, did not express objection of any sort but reported the matter to Sahib beyond Shared’s knowledge. For the following four weeks, Shared was denied of assignments upon Sahib’s instruction. Nevertheless, when he approached Haydar, Shared was advised not to get troubled by the setup. On 06 April 2008, Shared was summoned, without prior notice, to the office of the Employees Relations’ Head on account of the aforementioned recommendation. This was the only time Shared was informed of the presence of a disciplinary proceeding in which he is the main concern. Tasks in the Accompany Services department were assigned verbally, and partakers are chosen randomly by the division’s director. The same involve planning, arranging and executing detailed programs of visiting business delegations. The department also arranges for a number of other services including security escorts, transportation, and logistics. On the date in question, Shared was not notified of his supposed participation until a few hours before the event. Shared also explained that the red marks on his attendance record were duly sanctioned—notice of late appearance and leave of absence were filed properly. Further, he suggested verifying with his colleagues that he is always within the workplace the entire shift. Shared criticized the action taken by his superiors, and pointed out that he should have received a verbal or written warning before the case is even initiated. The Discipline and Grievance committee investigating Shared’s case knows that both Haydar and Sahib can be held legally responsible for such an unethical procedure. The action taken does not comply with the rules and regulations of the GSD and the Department of Civil Services. Even so, Shared does not want to impair his relationship with his superiors as this may directly impact conditions at work. On 20 April 2008, two separate meetings with Haydar and Sahib were requested by the chairman of the committee. Sahib turned down the request on grounds that the written recommendation was not his doing, while Haydar argued that he did not know about the existing organizational policies, and proposed that the case be terminated as if nothing happened. A case where the main problem is not accurately identified will not be resolved as a whole. There are always sub problems that coexist with the main problem; and at times, without thorough analysis, these are confused with the other. In effect, the proposals intended for resolution are subsequently regarded as ineffective when in fact it is the preliminary procedure that brought about the failure. From this scenario, it can be established that Shared has nearly been a victim of unethical disciplinary practices at work. There are several aspects in the company system that prove ineffectual, thus employees have low morale and do not display confidence in the administration. The Civil Services Department asserts the existence of rules and regulations, however there seems to be no indication that these were effectively disseminated to the employees. In addition, the flow of authority is not aptly observed, and accountabilities are not owned in a manner that clearly identifies the persons involved. Case Evaluation “A formal organization is one that exists to fulfil some explicitly stated purpose; and that purpose is often stated in writing” (Jex & Britt, 2008, p. 2). The Government Services Department (GSD) is a formal organization; but it has informal workplace dynamics. As conferred in the earlier part of this paper, delegation of tasks are not presented in writing, thus there is no tangible evidence that the organization can hold on to should an employee withdraw from a responsibility at any given moment. Shared was verbally directed to attend to a GSD sponsored event on 11 March 2008, a few hours before its commencement—a very untailored practice. Although it would not be a breach of the labor code should a task be abruptly assigned to an employee, this can be judged as unethical owing to the organizational culture that exists within GSD. Since there is no formal document that binds Shared to any obligation concerning the event, his refusal may not be considered a violation of the company rules and regulations. Moreover, there is no standard procedure as to the manner by which delegations are executed. Point persons in every event are selected at random. While there should be an explicit division of labor in an organization to sustain equal opportunities and workload among employees, the GSD does not utilize any form of official scheduling nor structured criteria upon which delegations must be based. Tendencies are, employees will suspect bias in managerial decisions, and feel either neglected when hardly ever assigned tasks or exploited when hands are fuller compared to the rest. Yet, Shared does not demonstrate any revulsion towards the system. It is but normal in this setting that a personal obligation gets in the way of work, though it is not considered a valid excuse in most formal organization. For this reason, Shared was able to decline an assignment casually without expecting reprimands from his superiors. The immediate job context includes the motivational “carrot and sticks” that superiors use to influence employee behavior. “Pay raises, bonuses, and public recognition act as carrots or positive reinforcements, whereas demotions, firings, reprimands, and pay penalties act as sticks or negative reinforcements” (Ferrell, et al, 2009 p.128). The division head, in his attempt to exercise power over Shared and set an example to other employees, chose to use a stick, or another person’s stick for that matter. Unfortunately, Khalid is not the type of a manager that takes responsibility for his own action. He passed on all the blame to Haydar who, on the other hand, used ignorance of the company rules and regulations as an alibi for such a blunder. Negative reinforcements are an essential element of employee motivational systems. While rewards drive employees to perform better, its counterpart helps inhibit unfavorable work behaviors. It is typical in every organization and mandated by law to follow a patterned method in imposing discipline upon employees. Reprimands or verbal warnings are given at the first instance of a misconduct; followed by a written warning when the problem endures after a certain period and to bind the employee into a formal agreement with the company; then a final warning to properly notify the employee of the repercussions of his issue. After all modes of notices are exhausted, this is the time a recommendation for a disciplinary action is filed against an employee. In Shared’s case, he has not received any of the aforesaid warnings, nor was told about the letter that accuses him of several unverified misdemeanors. Apparently, the letter in question is not legitimate and does not bear permissible contention against Shared. The Public Relations division has been planning to switch to electronic processing of transactions, but due to financial constraints, will not push for it until January 2009. Documentations are still done manually, and a number of paper works were not duly processed as these will consume time that can instead be used for more important purposes. Shared filed a notice of late appearance and a leave of absence prior to the dates under discussion; therefore the red marks on his attendance record are justifiable. The problem is that, these notices were not processed as should be, not by negligence but by deliberate act all because the department concerned considers it a waste of time to deal with written reports. This should not be the case in a formal organization. The significance of documenting files is not to be underrated, nor overlooked in favor of other company undertakings. A manual labor is generally strenuous; however, it does not rationalize for disregarding documents that seriously concerns the organization and its employees. The GSD believes that centralization of services will result in economies of scale. All divisions, sections, and units within its jurisdiction adhere to a common function. Obligations are not separate, and no specific requirements are mulled over before they are allocated. Shared is the head of the Public Relations Unit, and as the Organizational Chart shows, should directly report to the head of the Public Relations Section. Haydar is the head of the Hospitality Services Section, but he appears as Shared’s immediate supervisor due to centralization of services. Who is in charge of who seems quite ambiguous, and the department in command of a particular event is unclear. When a predicament occurs, it will be difficult to identify who will take the necessary measures; when an employee demonstrates an unwelcome behavior, knowing who to carry out the disciplinary procedure will look complicated. Alternative Courses of Action I. A Switch to the Electronic System E-government has been around for years, although it is still not implemented worldwide due to many reasons. Some departments of the Government Services System (GSD) in Abu Dhabi have been making transactions electronically, while the Public Relations division may not initiate the switch until January 2009. Budget constraint is the main impediment to this project, and is expected to become fully operational by November 2009. As this is already included in the organization’s agenda, it should no longer count as a proposed course of action. Nevertheless, this paper will examine the pros and cons of adopting the electronic filing system as well as the elements involved in this venture. Needless to say, the electronic system makes work ten times faster than its manual equivalent. Cost reduction and increased productivity is a target in every organization; and once a series of tasks is coordinated through the aid of computers, errors can easily be averted resulting to uninterrupted workflow. Employees are readily stressed, physically and mentally, by manual processing whereas this new system can reduce the difficulty of various operations—clerical, accounting, auditing, among others. In addition, computers provide more spacious file storage and less clutter than filing cabinets. It is not a surprise that employment of computers and other digital devices in a work environment entails significant costs. Apart from their relatively high prices against those of laid-back equipment, installation charges, maintenance expenses, and higher electrical bills will also come into the picture. In other words, a great deal of funds will be required periodically to sustain this enhancement. Another difficulty that the organization may encounter is the computer proficiency of its employees. There may be a need for trainings or to send employees to computer learning institutes—yet again entails cost on the part of the company. Worse, the organization may have to do away with some employees and hire new people with computer background. II. Finalization of the Company Rules and Regulations Rules and regulations serve as the framework of an organization. In its absence, there is neither structure in the manner transactions are carried out nor stability in work performance, employee discipline, and organizational relationship. It presents the guiding principles that employees across the board abide by in making decisions relating to work. Shared experienced a subjective grievance procedure in the hands of his superiors Haydar and Khalid owing to company rules and regulations issues. The Human Resources department provides the grievance policies and procedure for the Public Relations division and all of Abu Dhabi’s local office; however, fails to present guidelines of disciplinary actions and work ethics policies—that are still under development. The circumstance could have been different had there been rules and regulations duly implemented in the Public Relations division. Formulation of rules and regulations entails serious deliberation. All conditions at work will have to be considered, and impartiality will have to be demonstrated in its broadest sense. Brainstorming takes time, and some tasks may have to be set aside for its completion. There may also be a call for surveys to forecast how employees will react to certain policies, or researches to gather information pertaining to employee needs and preferences—an additional cost to the organization. Since employees in the Public Relations division are not accustomed to a more regulated work setting, the management will have to anticipate protests. Once the rules and regulations are finalized, these will have to be disseminated to all members of the organization. Either an orientation or a memorandum can be provided to ensure that all employees are properly informed. However, because the department has not yet adapted the electronic system, the process will take considerable amount of time, or the update may not get through to all persons concerned. This can lead to disorder, and most probably premeditated neglect of the newly introduced organizational law. III. Decentralization of Services The Government Services Department centralizes its services to attain economies of scale. This should work on small organizations where overseeing of performances is not a dilemma. The GSD has about 850 employees spread out in its six divisions, 250 of which are assigned to the Public Relations division. Such a number is not easy to maneuver; managers will have to know specifically the employees under their command and the duties they are appointed to, otherwise confusion in authority and enforcing of discipline will come about. Shared should answer to the head of the Public Relations Section, not to Haydar although the latter is still to be recognized as superior to the head of the Public Relations Unit. Also, tasks are not accordingly segregated among departments, hence the offhand attitude of employees towards work. Decentralization of services can promote equal distribution of workload. In this setting, each department operates simultaneously, and not one will encounter unwarranted work overload. Monitoring of performances is easily accomplished, and the management will know exactly who to question when something in the organizational affairs goes wrong. Work avoidance is less likely to happen when scheduling of tasks and delegation of staff are practiced in a more formal mode. Similarly, when there is partition in between departments, managers are able to fully concentrate on the task at hand, and all the other tasks under their responsibility. As with the formulation of organizational policies, decentralization of services is a lengthy process. Job descriptions of each department will have to be thoroughly evaluated; else complaints of unjust division of labor may arise. Centralized services have been a culture in the GSD since the early 70’s, and such a momentous transformation may draw violent reactions especially from seasoned employees. Those in favor of the old system can get demoralized, while the rest will sense awkwardness in getting on with work. Recommendation The world changes in a fast pace, and organizations are starting to recognize the increasing demands of their subjects. The Government Services Department, in its venture to provide support services for all departments of the local emirates, the private sector, and the public is not an exception. It is but a general truth that for organizations to optimize performance will have to begin with putting its internal system in order—this includes the human resources, policies, and culture. The evaluation of Shared’s case as well as the review of the GSD’s internal affairs lead to the proposal of three alternative courses of action: finalization of the rules and regulations, a switch to the electronic system, and decentralization of services. It is believed that the institution of all these, as opposed to electing just one, will result in a non-discriminatory work environment and methodical operations. The root of the problem can be attributed to the centralization of services as this, in the first place, explains why Shared was assigned the task of participating to the said event, which could have been someone else’s call. However, it will not pose a conflict if there were rules and regulations to follow. If for example, it was clearly established that employees can be required to work on short notice provided that they are fully able despite any personal circumstance, Shared has no means to evade the call of duty. In addition, rules and regulations may compel formalization of work assignments, and of perhaps conformity in writing. In this view, it is safe to assert that both centralization of services and the nonexistence of specific rules and regulations hold the blame, and their amendment will remedy the situation. On the other hand, the existence of rules and regulations along with the implementation of a new policy pertaining to the decentralization of services will prove ineffective if employees were not updated. Dissemination of information, when done manually, can be laborious. This is one among the many organizational transactions that have a need of electronic assistance. Work schedules, memorandum, and announcements, among other office updates can be communicated to all employees concerned in no time through an electronic system. Conclusion Rules and regulations in an organization help avoid unethical work practices that more often than not lead to employee grievances. An organization operates on a mission, yet it should not take for granted the basic needs of the people that keep it running. Managers are to set a good example to their subordinates; and on the instance of a serious delinquency or rather an abuse of authority, employees naturally lose confidence in their leadership competence, at the same time their respect diminishes. Unhealthy management-employee relationship results in low production, directly impacting the conduct of business. Changes are inevitable. It would not harm to shoulder some costs if enhancement of work conditions is guaranteed. Departing from the comfort zone can at first appear very demanding; nevertheless better opportunities will become more visible. Decentralization of services in the Government Services Department will formally define methods of task designations, while rules and regulations will set the directives for management-employee relations. Finally, these are well shared out to the entire organization through an electronic system. References O. C. Ferrell, John Fraedrich, Linda Ferrell. (2009). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. Steve M. Jex, Thomas W. Britt. (2008). Organizational psychology: An scientist-pratitioner approach. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Read More