The Impact of Power and Politics in Organizational Productivity

by Stacy Zeiger

Power and politics play a huge role in business, from governing how decisions are
made to how employees interact with one another. In businesses big and small, the
impact of power depends on whether employees use positive or negative power to
influence others in the workplace. Politics may directly influence who has the power
and determine whether the overall culture of the workplace encourages productivity.

Positive Types of Power

Positive power in an organization involves encouraging productivity. This includes

giving employees the power to make decisions, rewarding employees for strong
performance and appointing employees who perform strongly to supervise other
employees. Positive power builds employee confidence and motivates employees to
work harder. It also results in those in higher-level positions gaining power through
employee respect and communication, rather than coercive efforts. Employee
retention rates are higher when employees are given the power to express concerns
and work together in an organization.

Negative Types of Power

When leaders in an organization do not have the respect of the employees under
them, they have a negative power. This type of leader motivates employees to perform
by threatening them with job loss and other punishments or shows favoritism to certain
employees rather than recognizing the hard work of multiple employees. Not only does
the quality of work produce decrease under this type of power, but it leads to higher
turnover rates in an organization.

Positive Workplace Politics

Employees who learn to navigate the politics of an organization are more productive
than those who are left out of the loop. To encourage productivity, organizations must
develop a political culture easy for employees to understand. Establishing clear
policies and chains of command makes it easier for employees to find the answers
they need and spend more time on producing quality work. A climate focused on
collaboration and equal treatment prevents conflict that can reduce productivity.
Negative Workplace Politics

Organizations that develop climates of negativity and conflict suffer as a result. If

employees are encouraged to engage in dishonest or unethical behavior to get ahead
and favoritism trumps the quality of work, an organization faces decreases in
productivity and higher turnover rates. An organization without clear policies and
chains of command leads to employees spending more time searching for answers
and attempting to fix problems than actually completing quality work.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/impact-power-politics-organizational-productivity-
35942.html
The Influence of Power and Politics in Organizations
Bernard Oladosu Omisore, Ph.D
Augustina Nwaneka Nweke (Mrs)

Organizations are made up of both human and material resources. It is the human
resources of an organization that transform or convert the material resources of the
organization into finished or consumable products. In trying to transform/convert the
material resources of the organization, choices have to be made. Choices as to the
type or kind of product to be produced, different materials to be used in order to have
the desired product, the type of machinery to be adopted for production efficiency, the
financial resources to be involved and its sources, etc. In any of these decisions,
choices have to be made. These decisions or choices involve some kind of politics
while the person making the choices or decisions uses some power to ensure that
his/her choices or decisions are accepted. Thus, the influence of power and politics in
organizations presents a political analysis of intraorganizational relations in which
power play and politics is normal. In any organization, we look up to people/human
resources for support. This accounts for the inevitability of organizational politics and
power play. An understanding of organizational politics requires an analysis of power,
coalitions, and bargaining. The power relationship is the contest for political action and
encompasses the most basic issues underlying organizational politics. Infact, survival
in an organization is a political act.

INTRODUCTION

Organizations are organized bodies of persons or systems. They are neither the
rational, harmonious entities celebrated in managerial theory nor the arenas of
apocalyptic class conflict projected by Marxists. Rather, it may be argued, a more
suitable notion lies somewhere between these two, a concept of organizations as
politically negotiated orders (Bacharach and Lawler, 1980). Survival in any
organization is a political act. Thus, organizational life is dominated by political
interactions. Politics in organizations involve the tactical use of power to retain or
obtain control of real symbolic resources (Bacharach, et al, 1980). Organizational
structures are emergent entities. They are the result of the conscious political
decisions of particular actors and interest groups.

The comparative studies of organizations by sociologists in the last three to four

decades have, for the most part, adopted an apolitical view of organizations. This view
point may be attributed to a narrow interpretation of Max Webers (1947) approach to
organizations. Sociologists have spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to
prove or disprove the plausibility of Webers ideal construct of bureaucracy. It is safe to
say that Weber remains the most cited organizational theorist; however, the
narrowness of his impact is best exemplified by the fact that the pages of his work
most frequently cited by organizational researchers are those few where he presents
his ideal typical model of the organization (Bacharach and Lawler, 1980).

While it is true that Weber specified some of the primary dimensions of organizational
structure, it is also true that he viewed organizational structure as emerging from the
conscious political decisions of interest groups within or outside the organization. For
Weber, organizations are not simply rationally determined systems of interdependent
structures. They are also systems in which political tension among interest groups can
emerge and re-emerge.

Bacharach (1978) observes that students working within the structural tradition of Blau
and Schoenherr (1964) have been guided by two assumptions that inhibit the
development of a political interpretation of intraorganizational dynamics. First, they
have tended to cast organizations as normatively integrated systems, thereby ignoring
political conflicts and other tensions. Secondly, they tend to view the organization as a
holistic entity, and this view overlooks such organizational sub-units as interest groups
and coalitions, which are crucial to the development of a political perspective of intra-
organizational behaviours. In other words, organizations are not inherently apolitical.
Rather, such a characterization may be an artifact of a given theoretical perspective,
especially one that emphasizes normative integration and maintenance of the total
organization (Bacharach and Lawler, 1980). From the work of Dahrendor (1959), it is
clear that three groups appear to be critical to the development of a political analysis of
organizations: (a) Work groups: This may be based on departmental differences,
differences in departmental work activity, or differences prescribed by the
organizational hierarchy. (b) Interest groups: This may be defined as groups of actors
who are aware of the commonality of their goals and commonality of their fate beyond
simply their interdependence with regard to the conduct of work. (c) Coalition: A
coalition may be defined as grouping of interest groups who are committed to
achieving a common goal. They are based on the joint action of two or more interest
groups against other interest groups. From the above, a political analysis must be
concerned mainly with the nature of power across groupings in the organization and
the specification of tactics and countertactics that groups employ (Bacharach and
Lawler, 1980).

In emphasizing work groups, interest groups, and coalitions as units of analysis, it is

believed that individuals become political in groups, and that groups are capable of
effecting and often do effect organizational structure. In the same vein, if organizations
are to be understood as political systems, we must come to grips with how, when and
why groups mobilize power. Thus, let us now explore the subject of power more
deeply.

Subjective Nature of Power

Power is the ability a person has to influence another. The extent of this power is,
however, determined, to a large extent, by the perception of the term power by the
person at whom the power is directed. It may be more important what a person thinks
a superior officers power is than what in reality it is. Managers may take advantage of
this phenomenon by pretending they have more power than they actually have, that is,
by bluffing. If a mangers bluffing succeeds, the effect is exactly the same as if the one
bluffing actually possessed the formal power. Thus, power is a delicate phenomenon.
This is because of the influence of subjective factors, including ethical and moral
considerations (Obisi, 2003).

The Uses of Power

Power, when acquired, is meant to be used to achieve some purpose(s). Appropriate

use of power leads to the achievement of desired goals and objectives. Ineffective use
of power or failure to use power when the need arises has been described as the
major cause of defective functioning of a system. This is possible among
inexperienced managers and those who lack self-confidence. They tend to avoid using
power, preferring to pass problems with difficult employees and the like to others
(Obisi, 2003). The organizational consequences of not using power appropriately
become increasingly pronounced toward the top of an organization because in
hierarchical systems abdications of authority have effects all the way down the line.
Yet, trying to use power that one does not have (because of legal constraints, for
instance) can be equally detrimental. This is true because managerial actions with
regards to employees may be reversed by labour relations, board decisions (where it
exists), the courts, arbitrators and the power of public pressure at considerable cost to
the company. Thus, judicious and effective use of power is one of the most difficult
lessons a manager has to learn (Obisi, 2003).

AUTHORITY AND POWER RELATIONS

A manager may have the authority (right) to do something but may lack the power
(ability) to do it. On the other side of the coin, one may have the power to do
something, but may lack the authority to do it. Any of these two conditions describes
an unstable organization. Failure to match power and authority adequately at all levels
cause conflict in the organization. In extreme cases, this disequilibrium may lead to
destruction of the organization, perhaps even to bloodshed. Obisi (1996) was at pain
to point out how the Nigerian management fails to match power with authority. Inability
to balance power with authority may lead to conflict and in extreme cases bring
individuals and organizations to enormous pain.

One of the most important jobs of managers at all levels is to provide subordinates
with equal authority and power. That is, the subordinate should, for organizational
stability, have means (power) equal to their right (authority) to do the things necessary
to accomplish their part of the organizations objectives (Bacharach and Lawler, 1980).
When power and authority for a given person or position are roughly matched, we
have a condition we may call legitimate power or workable authority. Achieving a state
of legitimate power or workable authority at all levels in the organization is a goal
toward which managers should strive (Bacharach and Lawler, 1980).

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

The term politics is derived from the Greek word politics meaning a city or state. It
was originally used by Aristotle (384-322) in his book POLITICS to mean the affairs of
Greek city or state. In his view, man is a political animal who by interacting with
another or more persons produces a relationship called political. Lasswell (1951)
writes that politics is essentially the struggle for positions of power and influence by
which those who succeed in monopolizing such positions in society are able to make
decisions that affect the lives of every citizen within the country. By implication, politics
can be practiced by all persons in both governments and organizations with the
objective to struggle for power, influence, conflict, bargaining, reconciliation, resolution
and consensus. Thus, there are two types of politics, namely: state politics and
organizational politics. Here, we will concentrate mainly on organizational politics.

Organizational politics relates to behaviours that are outside those in which the
organization has taken a specific position for or against, the behaviors are intended to
obtain selfish and individual ends that are opposed to the ends of others in the
organization. Organizational politics may focus on the goals of groups as well as
individuals and they may well involve behaviours that are harmful to the organization
as a whole. They appear to be inevitable but at the same time there are wide
variations from organization to organization. Ethical issues often come to the fore and
bargaining is an important consideration in organizational politics (Obisi, 2003).
Organizational politics create very ambivalent responses because people look at the
whole process both negatively and positively, depending on the particular perspective
they have in mind. However, those who are successful in organizational politics tend to
be viewed positively perhaps because they are successful competitors in other
respects as well.

Recent research works unfold that political matters of this kind are a frequent topic of
conversation and that the most frequent issues are interdepartmental coordination,
delegation of authority, and promotions or transfers. A common concern is the
promotion of a less competent person based on favouritism. Inherent in this and many
others politicized situations are the influencing of performance evaluations, positively
for oneself and negatively for competitors, and the influencing of authority allocations,
as between one work union and another or between supervisor and subordinate.

It is important to explain that organizational politics become more prevalent and more
important for the individual at each higher level of management as the competition
becomes rougher. The following table suggests that tactics used also change with
management level and the kinds of people who are effective politicians are somewhat
different. There is enough evidence that strategic decisions at the levels of the
organizations may well be influenced politically. For example, new company location
may be influenced by the desires of top people regarding where they would like to live
or visit. It appears that such a reason may influence the location of a companys
headquarter. In Nigeria, such desires have influenced the location of many projects
which today turned out to be white elephant projects, all in attempt to satisfy certain
interest (Obisi, 2003).

http://hrmars.com/hrmars_papers/The_Influence_of_Power_and_Politics_in_Organizat
ions_(Part_1).pdf
The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and
organizational commitment

Organizational commitment and burnout were related to interpersonal relationships of

nurses in a small general hospital. Regular communication contacts among personnel
were differentiated as supervisor or coworker contact, and these categories were
further differentiated into pleasant and unpleasant contacts. The results were
consistent with a view of burnout in which emotional exhaustion leads to greater
depersonalization which subsequently leads to diminished personal accomplishment.
Interpersonal contact with personnel in the organization was related to the
development of burnout at each stage. Patterns of pleasant and unpleasant contacts
with supervisors and coworkers were related to the three aspects of burnout in a
distinct manner. High burnout was related to diminished organizational commitment,
which was also related to aspects of the interpersonal environment of the organization.
The results are discussed in the context of a comprehensive approach to
psychological adjustment to a worksetting.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.4030090402/full

Organizational stressors associated with job stress and burnout in

correctional officers: a systematic review
Caitlin Finney, Erene Stergiopoulos, Jennifer Hensel, Sarah Bonato and
Carolyn S. Dewa
Introduction

Workplace stress and burnout affects between 19% and 30% of employees in the
general working population. Job stress is the psychological distress or strain that
arises from both individual and organizational stressors in the workplace. Long term
job stress can lead to burnout in the workplace and is characterized by feelings of
exhaustion, cynicism, detachment, ineffectiveness and lack of personal
accomplishment. Both job stress and burnout can result in employees with decreased
organizational commitment and associated lower productivity. Over the past three
decades, a large body of research has examined the factors contributing to job stress
and burnout and there is a growing need to critically examine the organizational
stressors specifically, in order to create healthy employees and work environments.

Correctional facilities employees are potentially exposed to a greater number of on the

job risk factors because they house a population against their will with the mission of
contribut[ing] to public safety by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to
become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and human
control. Front-line correctional officers (COs) are the employees who are responsible
for keeping the facility safe and secure, maintaining the population of inmates and
helping to facilitate their rehabilitation. Given the nature of correctional facilities and
the service that is provided, the organizations that operate the facilities are
characterized by strict hierarchiesand pervasive bureaucrac[ies]. The
organizational structure of corrections and, consequently, the hierarchical relationship
between management and staff can cause stress and job dissatisfaction. Within
correctional facilities (e.g. prisons, jails), it is estimated that 37% of COs experience
job stress and burnout. This is higher than the estimated 19-30% in the general
working population. COs who experience symptoms of stress and burnout have the
potential to show a lack of motivation and a lack of commitment, resulting not only in
decreased organizational commitment, but also in an increase in counter-productive
attitudes and behaviors. Counter-productive attitudes and behaviors compromise the
safety and security of the correctional facility as well as inmate rehabilitation. An
example of a counter-productive behavior is aiding and abetting inmates in carrying
out criminal behavior from within the prison.

In recent years, COs have been facing increasingly high rates of workplace stress
which can produce a detrimental impact on the safety and security within correctional
facilities. It is therefore important to examine the organizational stressors that are
associated with CO stress and burnout. In their study of police officers, Crank et al.
(1995) reported that examining organizational level stressors was of importance due to
their ability to overwhelm otherwise beneficial individual-level characteristics. That is
to say that individual-level characteristics can moderate the effects of job stress,
however, even those beneficial characteristics become less helpful under conditions of
enduring or overwhelming organizational stressors. An awareness of the
organizational stressors impacting employee workplace stress and burnout would
enable the identification of organizational interventions that can more accurately target
these areas, thereby reducing stress and burnout.

A previous literature review by Shaufeli and Peeters (2000) has detailed some of the
organizational stressors that COs face. This review, however, organized their results
by type of facility rather than type of staff. In addition, more recent research has
highlighted several new organizational stressors that were not mentioned in this
review.

Cullen et al. (1985) have noted that COs need to be conceptualized as unique from
other employees within correctional facilities since COs work in an unusual social
setting and have an unusual technical task. In addition, a recent meta-analysis of
work-related stress in COs, by Dowden and Tellier (2004), called for a more detailed
analysis of job position as it may play a significant role in moderating the effects of job
stress. In support of this hypothesis, studies have demonstrated that different types of
correctional employees have varying levels of job stress and burnout. For example,
COs have higher levels of job stress than both supervisory COs and employees who
work in non-custody positions within the correctional facility. Correctional employees
are also exposed to different organizational stressors within the correctional facility.
Studies have found differences between COs and other correctional employees on
measures of role strain, perception of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, job satisfaction
and organizational commitment.

More recent research on CO stress has indicated several organizational stressors that
were not previously examined by Shaufeli and Peeters (2000) including, but not limited
to, organizational climate, resources, rewards and quality of supervision. Given the
differences in experienced job stress and burnout, interventions may need to be
employee group specific and address different areas of the organization depending on
the targeted employee group. Since they presented an aggregate review, the results
presented by Schaufeli and Peeters (2000) may have been confounded by the use of
studies that combined various correctional employees in their samples.

The purpose of this paper is to review the scientific literature on job stress and burnout
in COs employed in adult correctional facilities in order to examine organizational
stressors that are related to CO job stress and burnout. This paper fills a gap in the
organizational stress literature among COs by focusing on a specific group within the
facility and examining organizational stressors that were not previously identified. This
review marks the first step to identifying the areas within correctional organizations
that can be targeted by interventions in order to promote a healthy and productive
workplace for COs.

Background
COs and the facilities they work in
Within correctional facilities, COs have the primary responsibility of maintaining safety
and security within the walls of the institution by closely monitoring, supervising and
managing the inmates. COs also have the task of aiding offender rehabilitation,
preparing them for re-entry into society and ultimately contributing to the prevention of
recidivism. Despite consensus in the literature on the role of COs, numerous terms are
used to describe this position. They include: corrections officers (North America and
New Zealand), agentes penetenciarios (Brazil), prison officer (Britain, Australia,
Finland), surveillants (France), personnel de interior y vigilancia (Spain). For the
purposes of this paper, CO will encompass all of these terms.

Types of correctional facilities include prisons and jails, all of which have varying levels
of security ranging from minimum to medium to maximum. In countries like the United
States, prisons are operated by either the state or federal government and are used to
house offenders who have received a sentence of over one year due to their
commission of a more serious crime. Jails in the United States, on the other hand, are
operated by municipal governments and are used to house offenders who are awaiting
trial or those who have committed less serious offences and have a sentence of less
than one year. The United States also has a two-tiered correction system where
facilities are operated by the government, mentioned above, as well as by for-profit
private companies.

In countries like France and South Korea all prisons and jails are operated by the
federal government. Prisons and jails, similar to the United States, are used to house
offenders who have received longer sentences due to the more serious nature of their
crimes and short stay offenders who have committed lesser crimes respectively.

Stress and burnout

Stress is the psychological strain or distress resulting from exposure to unusual or
demanding situations, known as stressors. Occupational stress, specifically, is the
response to organizational stressors in the workplace environment that pose a
perceived threat to an individuals well-being or safety. In addition to organizational
factors, individual level factors have also been implicated in stress outcomes, both as
contributing factors as well as moderators of stress.

Long term stress can lead to burnout which is conceptualized as a psychological

syndrome in response to chronic interpersonal stressors on the job which arises due
to an imbalance between the demands placed on individuals and their ability to cope.
This syndrome is characterized by feelings of exhaustion, cynicism, detachment,
ineffectiveness and a personal lack of accomplishment.

Stressors associated with stress and burnout

A large body of literature has pointed to the multiple factors that have been implicated
in stress and burnout among the general working population. Specifically, stress and
burnout stem from a combination of individual risk factors and organizational stressors.
Organizational stressors such as work overload, role conflict, under-promotion and
level of participation interact with individual factors such as personality and family
problems to create mental and physical ill health in employees. Job stress can also
result from an imbalance between the demands placed on individuals and their ability
to cope or an imbalance between employees efforts on the job and the subsequent
rewards they receive.

Cooper and Marshalls (1976) model of job stress conceptualizes five categories of
workplace-specific sources of stress within an organization. This model has been
applied to a wide variety of employees including: social workers, police, nurses and
firefighters. The five categories of job stress as specified in this model are used to
conceptualize organizational stressors in the current literature review.

The first category, stressors that are intrinsic to the job, describes factors that increase
the difficulty and complexity of the duties that workers, in this case COs, must perform.
In addition, this category also describes the factors that make a workload too heavy for
the employee to handle.
The second category is role within the organization and is used to reflect role
ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity arises when the duties and expectations
placed on the employee are unclear. Role conflict occurs when there are conflicting
demands placed on the employee. Among COs, this can be seen through the
expectation to exercise professionalism within a bureaucratic correctional system
where COs do not have the authority to do so. For example, COs must often maintain
security through informal interactions with inmates that may not comply with the written
rules of the correctional facility.

The third category of work-specific stressors is career development which is used to

encompass the factors affecting the future of an employee within an organization like
promotion, job security and ambition. The fourth category, relationships at work,
describes the interactions that occur between the employee and their subordinates,
co-workers and supervisors. The organizations structure and climate, the final
category, is used to describe how the structure of the organization affects the
employee. Examples of organizational structure include employees degree of decision
latitude, organizational politics and communication between the organization and staff.

Outcomes of stress and burnout

Within the general working population, long term stress and burnout in the workforce
can result in a negative overall mood, physical ill health, job dissatisfaction and
increased substance abuse. Occupational stress can also result in a decrease in
organizational commitment and avoidance behaviors at work, such as absenteeism
and sick day use. In addition, burnout can cause lower productivity and ineffectiveness
at work.

Among correctional employees, stress and burnout can also lead to negative personal,
social and work outcomes. However, these effects are more pronounced in this
population when compared with the general working population, in part attributable to
higher rates of stress and burnout. In correctional staff, work stress and burnout have
been shown to be associated with decreased life satisfaction, internal withdrawal,
inability to cope with traumatic experiences, decreased physical health and increased
substance use. A decrease in positive social interaction and relationships and an
increase in work-family conflict may also be related to correctional employee stress
and burnout. From an organizational standpoint, correctional employee stress and
burnout manifests itself in decreased job involvement, lower job satisfaction, reduced
organizational commitment, negative safety outcomes, an increase in turnover,
increased absenteeism and higher use of sick days.This paper fills a gap in the
organizational stress literature among correctional officers by systematically reviewing
the way in which organizational stressors are related to CO job stress and burnout in
adult correctional facilities. In doing so, the present review identifies the areas that
organizational interventions can target in order to reduce CO stress and burnout.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-13-82
The Importance of Discipline in an Organization
by Matthew C. Keegan

Behavioral problems in the workplace call for supervisors to take action to ensure that
the problem is contained and remedied. The importance of discipline in the
organization cannot be underestimated, since employee morale, productivity and even
company profitability can be adversely affected. A positive approach may resolve a
problem before it worsens; however, discipline should be used carefully by following
company policy while respecting the worker's rights.

Misconduct
Discipline may be a necessary response to employee misconduct. Misconduct is
defined by the Business Dictionary as "unlawful or improper behavior such as in
dereliction of duty." This can include insubordination, an unexcused absence,
persistent tardiness, verbal abuse, dishonesty, theft or the failure to follow
departmental rules or policies. such as operating a forklift without wearing a hardhat.

Investigate
The first step a manager should take is to approach an employee to have him explain
his actions. Next, evidence should be gathered from the employee and third-party
sources to determine what, if any, involvement the employee may have had in the
documented misconduct. If possible, the investigation should take place before
disciplinary action is taken and with another manager present. Further, the employee
should be clear about what violation has been cited, with dates and times noted.
Management should not refrain from sharing with the accused employee what
evidence it has uncovered.

Determination
Once an investigation of misconduct has been completed, management must decide
what course of action to take. It is at this point where management must take care not
to be vindictive or possibly violate the rights of the employee and invite litigation.
Action that should not be taken includes changing the employee's work hours,
assigning the employee to handle an unpleasant task or canceling a planned vacation.
Such actions should not embarrass or humiliate the employee, but should be
restorative.

Discipline
Management must work with the human resources department to outline its plans for
discipline. If the company is a union shop, a union representative may be required to
be on hand when discipline is given. The human resources department may determine
the appropriate discipline for misconduct and advise a reprimand, suspension or
termination. Working with HR ensures that all legal aspects of discipline are covered
and that the punishment fits the offense.

Considerations
Alternative forms of discipline may be the best response to misconduct, writes Joe
Davidson for "The Washington Post." The employee might be permitted to publicly
apologize to offended employees and required to take an anger management class to
handle inappropriate behavior. However, alternative measures may not work if the
offense was severe and the employee should be suspended. The employee's
"character and personality" should always be considered when deciding on how to
handle incidences of misconduct.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-discipline-organization-16651.html

How to Maintain Discipline in the Workplace

by Fiona Miller; Updated September 26, 2017

The responsibility of workplace discipline and the rules and regulations set forth by the
business usually falls to the human resources department or a supervisor. Maintaining
discipline in the workplace is vital in creating a safe and comfortable working
environment for both employees and the management. Employers should ensure the
disciplinary measures governing their organization do not conflict with federal or state
labor laws to avoid liability on grounds of discrimination.

Set down the rules, regulations and policies for your organization in a business code of
ethics. Acquire the approval of the document from the board of directors or the
relevant shareholders of the business. Take the document to the HR department so
that they can educate and train employees on the policies.

Design a system which defines the measures the organization takes in case an
employee or supervisor violates the code of ethics. Ensure the system presents a fair
technique for reprimanding employees who have fallen short of the required
standards. For example, the employee should receive sufficient warning before
suspending or terminating the employee's job. Organize a board in charge of settling
disciplinary issues in the organization and ensure they conduct proper investigations
before making a decision. This protects your company from claims of unfair dismissal.
Start a program to boost discipline in the workplace by rewarding exemplary
individuals. Give out awards, accolades or remuneration for individuals who maintain
high standards of discipline in the business. These examples can help build positive
personal reinforcement for employees to achieve the company's expected level of
discipline.

Invite experts in the field to provide seminars and lectures on how to maintain high
standards of discipline in the workplace and the negative results of a workplace that
doesn't have strong discipline. Provide a program to address employees work related
problems and offer professional counseling services for employees in the workplace.
Communicate to the employees the importance of using office resources in case they
have personal or work related issues that may lead to poor work performance.

Act as a role model to employees in following company rules and regulations. Lead by
example to inspire employees and maintain a suitable reputation for the business.
Have supervisors and managers in every department adhere to the rules.

https://bizfluent.com/how-10027905-maintain-discipline-workplace.html
Enforcing discipline at the workplace
By Vision Reporter
By Joseph Kabuye

The fundamental law of human nature states that people are different and how we
establish those differences tends to determine the level of discipline found in the
workplace. One of the most important workplace goals is to maintain a workforce that
is fully engaged in their work, satisfied with job duties and responsibilities, and most of
all, productive.

Employee productivity is key to the companys profitability as job satisfaction is key to

employee productivity. Employees who fail to meet expectations concerning behavior
and workplace interaction are indisciplined.

For managers to nature disciplined employees, they should enforce a policy that
encourages employee involvement in addressing unacceptable behaviour.

A positive discipline policy requires input from the employee and manager in
identifying skills, behaviour and practices that prevent the employee from reaching full
potential. Below are some steps managers can take to manage employee discipline in
the workplace.

Establish rules and guidelines

Just as there are job descriptions with standards of performance, there must be
behaviour and conduct standards. These rules need to be consistent and enforced
across the organization. They should also be written in a manner that employees at
any education level can understand, fair, justifiable and communicated to all
employees. Knowledge of disciplinary consequences may increase employee
awareness and prevent violations.

Define consequences for the violation of code of ethics

Ensure the system presents a fair technique for reprimanding employees who have
fallen short of the required standards. For example, the employee should receive
sufficient warning before suspension or termination. Organize a team in charge of
settling disciplinary issues in the organization and ensure they conduct proper
investigations before making a decision. This protects the company from claims of
unfair dismissal.
Start a programme to boost discipline

This can be done by giving out remuneration to individuals who maintain high
standards of discipline. These examples can help build positive personal
reinforcement for employees to achieve the companys expected level of discipline.

Establish an employee assistance programme

Communicate to the employees the importance of using office resources in case they
have personal or work-related issues that may lead to poor work performance.

These issues may include but are not limited to drug and alcohol abuse, marital
issues, financial problems and anger control. These programmes should be part of the
benefit package and paid for by the company. A programme coordinator may be
recommended.

Act as a role model

Lead by example to inspire employees and maintain a suitable reputation in the

company. At the same time, have all supervisors in every department adhere to the
rules.

Maintaining discipline in the workplace is vital in creating a safe and comfortable

working environment for both employees and the management.

https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1310561/enforcing-discipline-workplace
The Importance of Discipline in an Organization
by Lisa Mooney

Discipline in business is a type of training in which individuals are subject to particular

regulations designed to mold behaviors. It is necessary to instill a disciplining program
in your small business in order to move forward. An effective regimen will help improve
workplace performance, provide a safe and honest environment conducive to
production.

Promotes Appropriate Behavior

A disciplined environment helps put both management and employees on their best
behavior. Managers must strictly adhere to the company's protocols in order to
effectively lead those looking to them as examples. Employees who enter this type of
administration know what the expectations are as well as the penalties for committing
infractions. This knowledge promotes appropriate actions and conduct which are
essential in a small company.

Efficiency
Efficiency is tied to a disciplined organization. Staff members must discipline
themselves in working in a timely manner to produce quality output. Small business
owners must strive to cultivate a workplace in which standards are set which everyone
in the organization is called upon to meet. This allows management and workers to get
things done. Discipline requires concentration, time management and orderliness,
which all contribute to efficient labor.

Peaceful Environment
Peacefulness ensues when you have a workplace that is committed to values of a
concentrated regimen. The environment that exists in organizations which do not issue
specific guidelines for behavior is frequently impulsive, erratic and uncertain. It is
extremely difficult for management to effectively lead workers under these conditions.
A disciplined facility, however, encourages a pleasant environment that promotes good
management and employee relations.

Fairness
Discipline helps to produce an honest environment in which everyone is treated fairly.
An employee does not have to fear being shouldered with an unfair amount of tasks
because set protocols are in place that call for workers to share the load. Managers
are less likely to play favorites in a disciplined environment as well, as they are subject
to the same conduct requirements as all others in the company. The compliance
organization HR.BLR.com states that employers can ensure fair treatment of all
workers by uniformly following their performance discipline plans.

Ensures Safety
Safety in your small company is of vital importance. You do not want any of your staff
or customers to suffer preventable accidents from which personal harm occurs, which
could also lead to possible legal action. You must abide by all occupational safety
regulations and train your staff appropriately. Kelly Services' Smart Manager website
says that a disciplined environment is necessary to provide a secure workplace. For
this reason, it is necessary to train all employees on safety procedures. Employees
who fail to follow safety directives are subject to disciplinary measures.

http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/importance-discipline-organization-4661.html
The Effect of Labor Unions
by Ruth Mayhew

Many job postings for human resources positions indicate whether the candidate
needs experience in labor-management relations or an HR background in a union
work environment. The reason is because a labor union significantly impacts HR
functions as well as the company's overall operations. Small businesses that are
unionized are likely to experience an even greater impact because of the advanced
level of HR expertise and the HR functions required in a union environment that aren't
a factor in a nonunion workplace.

Labor-Management Relations

One of the primary effects that a labor union has on an organization is the level of
expertise your human resources department must have. Small businesses that don't
have dedicated HR departments should have at least one staff member with
management authority who's not just comfortable with both employee relations and
labor-management relations, but who knows the distinction between the two and how
to balance the two, because even in a union shop, there are also nonunion
employment functions for which HR is responsible. In a unionized work environment,
there are certain nuances peculiar to labor-management relations that aren't present in
a nonunion work environment.

Employee Issues

Most labor union contracts -- also called collective bargaining agreements -- contain a
step-by-step process for addressing and resolving employee grievances. The effect
that a labor union has is that you generally can't resolve employee issues without
following the grievance process. For example, if an employee objects to a disciplinary
warning he received and has documentation to support his position, the union contract
won't let you talk things over with the employee and arrive at a mutually agreed-upon
resolution to retract the disciplinary action. Instead, you have to resolve the
employee's issue according to the grievance steps outlined in the union contract.

Negotiations

Companies that have a labor union contract in place need to be prepared for contract
negotiations. The negotiation process involves labor and management presenting one
proposal after another and agreeing to concessions until they reach common ground.
HR must prepare for contract negotiations far in advance -- often months for complex
contracts -- to calculate numerous wage and benefit scenarios to present to the labor
union for collective bargaining negotiation sessions.

Management Discretion

A standard clause in most collective bargaining agreements is called a management

rights clause. The management rights clause essentially says that the company's
management has the right to operate the business as it sees fit and make decisions in
the best interest of the company. Overall, the management rights clause allows
company leadership to use their own discretion in running the company -- sort of. In a
labor union environment, the collective bargaining agreement takes away
management's discretion in making decisions concerning performance, recognition
and reward for union employees. For example, managers are prohibited from using
their discretion in rewarding an employee's exemplary job performance with a wage
increase. The effect that a labor union has is that the union contract generally dictates
when employees receive raises. Union employees all receive raises at the same time,
in the same amount, regardless of whether they are star employees or the lowest-
performing workers.

Divisiveness

Labor unions create divisiveness. "Some unions win higher wages for their members,
though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer
jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else," writes James Sherk in
his May 2009 article titled, "What Unions Do: How Labor Unions Affect Job and the
Economy" for The Heritage Foundation. The article pits unionized work environments
against nonunion work environments in describing the effects of two intertwined
issues: jobs and economics. There are proponents for organized labor as well as
those who support maintaining nonunion workplaces, and both groups generally are
very passionate about their respective positions, which creates a line in the sand
between organized labor and management.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effect-labor-unions-56304.html
The Advantages of Labor Unions for an Organization
by Luke Arthur

Labor unions are organizations in which employees bond together to create a

collective voice for negotiations with employers. While some view labor unions as a
negative, they actually can have several positive effects on the labor market in
general. They can help both employers and employees, if they are utilized correctly.

Simpler Negotiations
When you deal with a labor union, you do not have to negotiate with multiple
employees. You simply talk to the head of the labor union and the head of the union
speaks for all of the workforce. By doing this, you can negotiate faster and more
efficiently without having to worry about meeting with many different employees.

Employee Satisfaction
When employees deal with unions, they may be more satisfied because they have a
voice to speak to the employer. They get higher wages on average and better benefits
packages. When you meet the needs of the employees better, they will be more
satisfied in their jobs and will be willing to work harder for you. This could lead to
higher productivity and better quality production.

Less Turnover
Another advantage of labor unions for organizations is that they lead to less turnover.
When you have a workforce that is comprised of labor union members, they will not
leave their jobs as frequently. They have to pay dues to be a part of the union, and
they typically do not want to lose their position in the organization. When you have
lower levels of turnover, it saves your business money in the long run by not having to
train as many new employees.

Easier to Make Changes

Businesses regularly have to undergo change if they want to stay at the forefront of
their industry. When a business has a labor union to work with, they can partner
together to facilitate change easier. When the employer knows that change is required,
it can disseminate this information to the leadership of the union and the union can
then pass the information along to the employees. When everyone is on the same
page, it improves the chances of the company getting through the change.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-labor-unions-organization-21119.html