1.1 Introduction
Very many interesting observations concerning work discipline and employee punishment can be found in the opinions of the forerunners of management. Their views proved that management sciences develop on a continuous basis. Contrary to appearances, there are no revolutionary ideas here. Even re-engineering hailed as a business revolution has its roots in the accomplishments of K. Adamiecki. The same can be said about the model of positive discipline proposed by D. Grote.
It is the Michelin brothers and H. Emerson who can be regarded as the forerunners of positive discipline. They opposed the automatic punishment of employees and the advocates of learning from oneâs own mistakes. Nowadays these solutions are used practically in the whole automotive sector; whatâs more, they are included in standardised quality management systems, which should be dominated by corrective and preventive actions. A short review of the achievements of the precursors of management will be followed by a presentation of the definitions of discipline. In the previous literature on the subject (Schoen and Durand 1979; Boyd 1984; Catt and Mille 1985; Torrington and Hall 1991; Haimann and Hilgert 1997; Morgan 1999; Guffey and Helms 2011), discipline is identified with obedience, proper behaviour and action taken against employees who do not comply with the organisationâs rules. It is even believed that disciplining is connected with the use of force and formal authority; however, simultaneously there appear opinions arguing that discipline means âthe strengthening of morale and self -controlâ (Boyd 1984: 202).
Discipline may be analysed based on the normative approach and the broader cultural approach. It should be stated unequivocally that employee behaviour is not dependent on formal, informal, group, qualitative or technological norms (after all, norms are one of the elements of culture), but is embedded in a particular environment or organisational culture.
There exist various types of discipline. In the literature (Leonard 1968; Schoen and Durand 1979; Torrington and Hall 1991), it is possible to find a division into managerial discipline and group discipline as well as self-discipline , strong discipline, weak discipline and group discipline. In reality, there are very many types of discipline. Besides generally known and accepted types of discipline such us budgetary discipline, we can distinguish other types, for example, ethical, unethical, motivational, cultural, conscious, unconscious, trust-based, etc.
Work discipline fulfils numerous functions (deterring, motivational, insuring, educational, corrective, integrating, internalising, socialising or destructive functions) and has to be maintained in compliance with many principles (e.g. the principles of transparency, inevitability, justice ). The research conducted so far indicates that personality traits (e.g. Argyle 1989; Michel and Bowling 2013; Scott and Judge 2013; Wei and Si 2013), organisational structures (e.g. Priesemuth et al. 2013), and management styles (Tepper 2000; Ertureten et al. 2013) may be relevant for work discipline. Apart from these factors, it can be assumed that work discipline depends also on the ownership form of an organisation, the type of an organisation, technical equipment and infrastructure.
1.2 The Views of the Forerunners of Management on Work Discipline
It is difficult to determine the origins of what we refer to nowadays as work discipline. In the Bible, God tells Adam to comply with particular rulesâhe must not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Due to his disobedience, Adam loses eternal life, has to be punished for his sin, begins to experience shame and is forced to work hard. It can be said that God did not go easy on Adamâhe must not have known the rules of positive discipline.
In 1776 Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations: the division of labour becomes more and more specialised and factory owners attempt to restrict the freedom of labour by means of the technical system (tying an employee to a machine) and by introducing strict supervision. According to G. Morgan, âin order to get workers accustomed to the new and rigorously obeyed factory production routine, new work methods and procedures were introducedâ (Morgan 1999: 21).
Some models of dealing with workers were adopted from the military. G. Morgan claims that the school of a mechanistic organisation1 owes a lot to Frederick the Great, whose principle was for soldiers to fear their officers more than their enemy. Absolute discipline and obedience was required, but also specialisation and standardisationâall these features of the Prussian army were replicated subsequently in âmechanisedâ organisations. The German sociologist Max Weber also made a significant contribution to the development of knowledge of the methods of discipline. His ideal bureaucratic machine indicated the need to introduce hierarchical supervision and detailed regulations; it also stressed the importance of reliability and regularity.
As a matter of fact, the classical theory of organisations did not refer to work discipline, but its basic rules were shaped by:
- determining a single source of instructions (every employee receives instructions from one boss only);
- determining the scope of control (the number of subordinates cannot be too large in view of the requirements of communication and coordination processes);
- assigning responsibility and authority (everybody knows their authority and thus can demand obedience; entrusting somebody with authority means allowing them to take disciplinary actions).
The importance of work discipline was emphasised by F.W. Taylor, who directly formulated the proper features of discipline, i.e.:
- justice (remuneration adequate for efficiency);
- reason (reasonable administration of punishments );
- quality of management (good management guarantees discipline).
According to the school of a scientific organisation (represented by Taylor, Fayol, Gantt), discipline results also from the necessity to subordinate personal interests to those of the whole organisation.
Taylor claimed also that workers should be permanently controlled. Only compliance with procedures leads to improvement in their work efficiency.
Although strict discipline prevailed in Henry Fordâs factories, his employees did play various organisational games (necessitated by the monotony of the work). They were subjected to centralised control and dismissals were effected immediately (Martyniak 2002).
Even today, many people tend to associate discipline with punishing employees. Therefore, the views of H. Emerson on disciplining employees should be regarded as revolutionary. He believed that the punishment of employees by people who had power was a short-sighted policy. For Emerson, discipline meant a certain order in life (Martyniak 2002). He paid attention to the cultural aspect of discipline and concluded that an important role in maintaining discipline was played by an organisationâs spirit and customs.
An interesting method of ensuring discipline was also used in the factories owned by the Michelin brothers. An employee who had made a mistake was not punished automatically, but had to go to their boss in order to discuss possibilities for improving their work (Martyniak 2002). Nowadays similar solutions are used where quality management systems have been implemented correctly and where quality is being improved comprehensively by means of corrective and preventive action.
O. Sheldon noted that the notion of justice played an important role in people management. His views on this matter have been confirmed by many studies. A sense of justice is important for the further motivation of work. It is of enormous importance in work discipline systems.
The views of the forerunners of management on work discipline and control are presented in the table below (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1
The views of the forerunners of management on work discipline and control
Author | Views | Notes |
|---|---|---|
F.W Taylor | Formal control should be exercised by foremen; their role consists in maintaining work discipline. Good management guarantees discipline. Reason plays an important role (e.g. in the administration of punishments ). The card system informed employees whether tasks were being carried out correctly (a yellow card meant a warning) | Taylorâs views on reason and good management are still valid. However, the discipline of work is not just about applying penalties . Nowadays, unfortunately in the theory of management only, and rarely in its practice, great importance is attached to self -discipline and a proper organisational culture whose elements include expressing respect for employees and taking advantage of their competences. Taylorâs follower, C.B. Thompson, talked already about taking advantage of employeesâ experience |
F.B. Gilbreth and L.Gilbreth | They introduced the notion of competition (with oneself, colleagues at work and standards). The attitude towards discipline changed. It was not only compliance with standards but also motivation to change (sharing in profits, methods of remuneration) that were to encourage people to increase their efficiency | Today the Gilbrethsâ views may be useful particularly in maintaining self -discipline by continually improving oneâs own work (competing with oneself) |
A.P. Sloan, Jr. | He looked for methods to achieve balance between extreme centralisation and decentralisation. He concluded that what was necessary was the centralisation of control over all functions of an organisation. Such control was to be exercised by a president or managing director. He introduced coordination committees | Sloanâs views today allow us to understand relationships be... |