Models, styles and Models, styles

and metaphors
metaphors: understanding
the management of discipline
Anthony Fenley 349
Ruskin College, Oxford, UK
``The conflict of interests between employers and employed in private industry has two
aspects'' writes Mr Henry Clay in the Observer, ``the purely economic aspect of wages,
and the moral aspect of subordination to discipline.'' There is no lack of testimony to the
importance of the discipline aspect in present day labour feeling. Self respect, status,
independence, personal freedom, personal dignity ± a whole propaganda literature and a
whole set of commentaries on labour have been written around these terms, (Goodrich,
1975, p. 27).

Discipline as a workplace issue

The management of workplace discipline remains a key problem in
employee relations, and is one of the most discernible sources of conflict.
The first Code of Practice published by ACAS (1976) dealt with discipline,
and this was later augmented by an extensive guidance booklet (ACAS,
1987).
In practice, organisations appear to have accepted the importance of
formalising their disciplinary arrangements. In 1984, it was estimated that
90 per cent of enterprises employing 25 or more people had formal
discipline procedures, although only one-third of firms employing fewer
than 20 had such procedures, (Edwards, 1989, p. 306).
Despite of the formalisation of disciplinary procedures, the ACAS
Annual Report for 1997 (ACAS, 1998) shows they received 42,771 unfair
dismissal complaints (36 per cent of which went to tribunals). Of the 1166
collective conciliation cases completed by ACAS in 1997, 12 per cent were
concerned with dismissal and discipline, while 30 per cent of the 71
requests for arbitration involved these matters (ACAS, 1998). Survey
evidence suggests that there are between 200,000 and 250,000 dismissals
each year, excluding other types of disciplinary action, (Edwards, 1989,
p. 306). Each case of discipline and dismissal raises issues as to what
constitutes good employee relations, and whether cases have been dealt
with effectively.

Good employee relations and effective discipline

Views as to what constitutes good employee relations are very much linked
both to the specific goals which are being pursued and to an underlying set Employee Relations,
of values. This issue has been discussed by Dobson (1982) who notes that Vol. 20 No. 4, 1998, pp. 349-364.
# MCB University Press,
``little attention has been paid to the criteria which can be used to 0142-5455
Employee adjudicate whether the industrial relations of a firm or industry are good or
Relations bad''. He points out it is very difficult to arrive at a consensus as to what
20,4 constitutes ``good employee relations'' (1982, p. 5).
Although the substance of good employee relations is debatable, it
seems reasonable to claim that the disciplinary process is likely to make a
positive contribution to good industrial relations when:
350
. it assists the operational effectiveness of the enterprise;
. there is a feeling of perceived fairness on the part of the workers;
. disagreements and conflicts can be structured and resolved rather
than leading to industrial action or other forms of disaffection,
including tribunal applications;
. it provides a normative framework for identifying and dealing with
problem areas.
However, such a skeletal framework leaves unresolved how this might be
fleshed out in practice. Some clues are available from the comparative and
legal literature on the subject. Locke (1996), in a comparative analysis of
US, German and Japanese management, criticises ``top down imposed rules
and sanctions''. He argues that where there is the positive acceptance of a
work community's codes of conduct, work behaviour and values, this
constitutes the workplace's ``moral order'' (p. 225) and is likely to be more
successful than the alternatives.
Banderet (1986) identified three legal limits placed on the employer's
definition of good practice:
(1) offences must be work related;
(2) the employee's act or omission must be unjustified;
(3) ``the rule that the violation of which constitutes a disciplinary
offence must be reasonable'' (Banderet, 1986, pp. 268-9).
Writing in the British context, Elias (1981, p. 211) notes: ``the law requires
that employers should not remorselessly pursue their own interests. They
must also take into account the interest of the worker whose dismissal is
under consideration. The function of fairness is to reconcile these various
and conflicting interests''. While Crozier (1964, p. 179) notes: ``when one
believes that human activities depend on the feelings and sentiments of the
people involved, and on the inter-personal and group relationships that
influence them, one cannot expect that imposing economic reality on them
will bring constant and predictable results''.
Arguably, during the 1970s shifts in public policy sought to minimise
conflicts over discipline, and in doing so drew on theoretical perspectives
that had developed in the academic literature. However, this article argues
that this approach in itself provides only a limited understanding of how Models, styles
disciplinary situations are dealt with, and needs to be considered in the and metaphors
context of managerial style and the metaphorical form that managerial
behaviour takes.

Theoretical approaches to discipline

In examining models of the disciplinary process a distinction has been 351
made between corrective and punitive approaches. First enunciated by
Jones (1961), this division has become part of the established literature on
the subject (see Anderman, 1972; Ashdown and Baker, 1973; Jones, 1961).
Referring to the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, Anderman asserts that,
``broadly speaking, the standards set in both the Industrial Relations Code
of Practice and the dismissals provisions of the Act suggest support for an
overall approach to discipline with strong `corrective' elements. They also
tacitly reject an unsystematically punitive approach to discipline ...''
(Anderman, 1972, p. 57).
The ``corrective'' approach to disciplinary policies and practice has
seemed to prevail in the writings of most authorities, and this is reflected in
the Code of Practice (ACAS, 1976) and the further guidance booklet (ACAS,
1987) which ``contains examples of good practice and is designed to help
employers and employees in all types and size of organisation'' (ACAS,
1987, p. 4). Paragraph 9 of the ACAS Code of Practice, for example, states
``disciplinary procedures should not be viewed as a means of imposing
sanctions. They should also be designed to emphasise and encourage
improvements in individual conduct'' (ACAS, 1976, p. 3).
Many companies follow such sentiments in their policies, for example,
``disciplinary action should be corrective rather than seek to punish the
individual''. However, whether managers heed such advice in practice is
open to debate.
As well as the corrective and punitive approaches, the concept of the
revisionist model has also emerged.
In comparing the three models there are five attributes that need to be
considered. These are:
(1) overall managerial objectives;
(2) the chief procedural characteristics involved;
(3) the ``considerations'' that the parties take into account;
(4) other special features; and finally
(5) criticisms of each model.
The intention here is to determine the benefits and limitations of each
model in describing the reality of workplace events, and whether they
assist practitioners involved in discipline cases.
Employee Punitive model
Relations The punitive model is likely to be associated with ``hard'' management
20,4 willing and able to exercise prerogatives with little interference from trade
unions and without substantial regard to the law or outside agencies.
The objective of such management is to act so as to deter employees
from committing offences. Employees are expected to obey rules because of
352 the fear of the punishment which will ensue if they are broken Employers
enjoy a strong discretionary element in their treatment of situations, and
responses are invariably ad hoc. In practice there is likely to be erratic and
unpredictable use of penalties, harsh and irregular. Adjudication by
management will be prompt and final; dismissal may take place without
specific warning. The number of offences and situations leading to
dismissal is likely to be large, and the number of procedural stages
minimal. Countervailing considerations such as effective union
representation, legal, arbitrarial, and procedural rights will be marginal
and of little consequence.
Considerations underlying the punitive model will rest on ``legalistic
reasoning'', and concern with administrative effectiveness through rule
enforcement. A rule is seen as an end in itself; management is concerned to
extract obedience to the rule and allocate blame. Transgression of the rule
is seen as wilful and deliberate. Gouldner (1954, p. 220) notes how in a
``punishment centred bureaucracy'', ``when a supervisor investigated an
absence, he did not do so in order to determine its causes. Instead he strove
to extract obedience to the rule''. There is a belief that such an approach
will induce a contingent response in the errant employee especially if the
sanction is intense and applied close in time to the event. The application of
intense punishment is expected to prevent repetition of the same and
related types of behaviour.
The distinguishing feature of the punitive approach is its authoritarian
basis and the resulting arbitrary treatment. It neglects the educational
possibilities of a disciplinary policy in training employees to obey rules.
The punitive model can produce undesirable side effects in terms of worker
resentment against the employer either through overt conflict or other
potential sources of disruption to work; instead of it ending delinquency, it
may merely lead to its more subtle manifestations. Huberman (1964) in a
relevant study notes: ``the people who had been disciplined were generally
still among the poorest workers: their attitude was sulky, if not openly
hostile, and they seemed to be spreading this feeling among the rest of the
crew. Some were known to play little games to frustrate the foreman, but
were taking increasing care not to get caught''.
Although the punitive approach has attracted considerable criticism,
Beyer and Trice (1984) have noted that relatively little data has ``been
generated on the effects of sanctions, especially the effects of negative
sanctions'' (p. 745). They also refer to work by Arvey and Ivancevich (1980)
in which negative connotation and public denial are not regarded as,
``sufficient reasons to dismiss punishment as a potential management Models, styles
approach for modifying and controlling behaviour'' (1980, p. 131). and metaphors
However, as we have argued above, as far as formal public policy is
concerned the punitive model was subordinate to the corrective model.

Corrective model
The main intention of the corrective model is to foster self-discipline; action 353
on the employer's part is designed to correct the individual rather than
punish or instil fear. Rules need to be ``well known and accepted by
employees'' (Anderman, 1972, p. 58). Penalties are designed to be applied
fairly and consistently, and are predictable. Except in cases of gross
misconduct, dismissal will not take place unless there has been an
opportunity to modify behaviour. There will be adequate warnings, the
opportunity to improve before a dismissal takes place, and lesser penalties
for initial infractions.
The principles of ``natural justice'' are an important and integral part of
the corrective approach; the employee ought to have a right to a fair
hearing, the right to representation, the right of appeal, to question the
facts as presented and the right to present a defence.
The prime consideration under the corrective approach is to establish
whether rules or orders are reasonably related to the efficient and safe
operation of company business. The reason and purpose of disciplinary
action must be clearly indicated to the employee. In order to encourage self-
discipline this must be viewed as fair by the employees. Management
avoids supposition and personal prejudice, and is willing and able to show
that a violation has occurred.
The corrective model employer will sympathetically examine the degree
of rule infraction, the employee's intent, his/her knowledge of the rule or
standard, whether or not he/she made an honest mistake, and the personal
impact of disciplinary action. Other factors include the employee's past
service, his/her work and disciplinary record and psychological state. The
corrective model is based on the assumption that employees are willing to
abide by well-established and equitable standards of behaviour.
A number of criticisms have been levelled against the corrective
approach. First, that it is construed on an illogical premiss, i.e. that if an
organisation treats its employees progressively worse, they get
progressively better (Redeker, 1983, p. 33). Furthermore, it can be argued
that corrective discipline is a sophisticated form of punishment i.e. ``a
negative incentive causing the suppression of actions that might bring
about unwanted consequences'' (Wheeler, 1976, p. 241). Emphasis is on the
procedural rather than the substantive aspects of discipline, and that it
over stresses the benefits of formalisation. The corrective approach has
been labelled managerialist in nature because it tries to separate discipline
from the wider issue of control (Mellish and Collis Squires, 1976, p. 167).
Employee The corrective approach can be costly in terms of the time of
Relations management and personnel involved and may be potentially disruptive
20,4 to work. In an ESRC study some supervisors criticised the use of
suspension as a sanction because, in cases of absenteeism, the punishment
was synonymous with the offence; in addition work had to be rearranged
and suitable cover obtained. Many line managers feel that the
354 ``constitutionalism'' of the corrective model interferes too much with their
``right to manage'' and operational effectiveness (Fenley, 1984). Set against
this is the research undertaken by Beyer and Trice (1984) who found their
``results support opinions often voiced ... if it must be used, mild discipline
is most effective'' (p. 760).

Revisionist model
The revisionist model is of US origin, and it is the advocates of this
approach who most readily criticise the corrective and punitive
approaches. Exponents of this model claims as its objective the
promotion of adequate self-respect. The best descriptions are in Redeker
(1983) and in Huberman (1964), each of whom describes a variant of the
model; such an approach may be referred to as ``progressive discipline'',
(see Osigweh and Hutchison, 1990).
The chief procedural arrangements in the revisionist model are that at
the induction stage the new employee signs a statement of assent to, and
commitment to the company's rules of conduct. Subsequent lapses in
behaviour are promptly brought to his or her attention in a friendly manner
by the supervisor in order to adjust behaviour; repetition of offences
requires a further reaffirmation of responsibilities by the employee.
After the first amicable chat, there is another friendly but more serious
chat, followed by vocational counselling, and the errant employee may be
sent home with pay to consider the situation. Persistent bad behaviour or a
single serious offence may lead to termination by the employer, or be
regarded as the employee having voluntarily terminated his/her own
employment.
Until the ultimate sanction is applied there are no disciplinary penalties
± such as demotions, suspensions, or other forms of punishment. Dismissal
is not seen as punitive because the intention on the employer's part is not
retribution, but recognition that the employee, ``lacks self respect and,
therefore, that his future behaviour is going to be troublesome and contrary
to the legitimate aims of the company'' (Huberman, 1964). When a
``disciplinary situation'' occurs, the supervisor is expected to explain the
rule and its purpose to the employee, and express confidence in him or her.
The employee is ``enticed'' into adherence by the supervisor who seeks to
obtain a reaffirmation by the employee to the rules and policies of the
company.
The exclusive features of the revisionist model are that all
forms of punishment and threats of punishment are eliminated as
counter-productive. Payment of the employee while he or she is sent home Models, styles
is designed to be supportive and avoids grievances. Dismissal is not and metaphors
regarded as punitive for the reasons outlined above. Proponents of the
model argue it is future oriented, based on the assumption that the ``best
predictor of a person's future behaviour is his past behaviour''. The
employer does not get into arguments about past behaviour. Concentration
on future conduct, it is felt, makes it more difficult for a union to argue a 355
meaningful case. The intent behind the revisionist model is to preserve the
employee's psychological wellbeing, and prevent supervisors who do not
like disciplinary situations from being put into conflictual contexts.
The main criticism of the revisionist school is that despite assertions to
the contrary it is simply a refined version of the corrective approach.
Whatever claims are made, the attempt to shape employee behaviour and
attitudes ultimately depends on the contractual might of the employer to
impose a detriment on the individual concerned. In Britain the revisionist
approach might fall foul of constructive dismissal legislation i.e. where an
employer forces an employee to resign it could constitute a dismissal, and
might be found to be unfair. However, it is clear from discussions with
practitioners that giving errant employees the opportunity to leave and
resign is not uncommon.
It can also be argued that the revisionist approach contains elements of
the punitive model, given that there are no formal procedural stages
between failed affirmations and the actual act of termination. Mellish and
Collis Squires (1976) have argued that the punitive-corrective dichotomy is
a false one. Work situations do not automatically fit into compartments,
but it can be contended that the value of such models is that they allow
practitioners to reflect on the construction of their disciplinary systems and
the way specific cases are dealt with. The revisionist model because it
contains elements of the corrective and punitive models, appears to have
little value as a means of analysis, except in one important regard. Its
criticisms of the more established models, warrants a re-examination of the
typologies used in assessing management approaches to discipline. A
useful starting point in this process of refinement are the notions of ``hard''
and ``soft'' management.

Approaches to management: McGregor's classic theory

The punitive approach to discipline has usually been associated with hard
management, and the corrective approach with soft management.
Arguably the corrective approach has come to be viewed as morally,
legally, and operationally superior to the punitive approach. Most
organisations and managers are now exposed to increasing pressures;
those of competition, client demand, customer care, and financial
constraints, which, it can be argued, warrant a reassessment of models
Employee of discipline. Managers increasingly find themselves in contexts or
Relations situations where they are required to be hard in their approach, and
20,4 adopt a punitive approach to problem situations.
In The Case for Managerial Ruthlessness, Rieple and Vyakarnam (1996)
note that ``managers in high-growth companies espoused behaviours which
allowed them to be much more focused on the company's objectives ... One
356 of these behaviours was an ability to dismiss or confront poorly
performing staff'' (p. 23). They argue that, ``the ability to be ruthless is a
key management skill, which increases in importance the higher and more
central the manager's role in an organisation'' (p. 31). However, if one
accepts the role of metaphors in understanding and assessing management
behaviour it is necessary to draw out the distinction between ``hard'' and
``soft'' management approaches.
In his classic study The Human Side of Enterprise, the very notion of
style has been questioned by McGregor (1987). He contends, ``the all
important climate of the superior-subordinate relationship is determined
not by policy and procedure, nor by the personal style of the superior, but
by the subtle and frequently unconscious manifestations of his underlying
conception of management and his assumptions about people in general''
(p. 141). McGregor accepts that such assumptions are reflected in a
manager's ``daily behaviour'', while workers have the capacity to
distinguish between what is genuine and what is contrived (p. 139).
Writing about football management, Hopcraft argues, ``personality must be
the key factor in managerial success. It is not a question of being a nice
man or a nasty one, of being likeable or aloof, of being imaginative or
cautious, hard or indulgent in discipline. All of these things are
subordinate to the essential quality that, it seems, all successful
managers have: the capacity to dominate'' (Hopcraft, 1992).
The terms ``hard'' and ``soft'' management are readily used by people at
work, often without any attempt to define the meaning of such expressions.
The concept of style is perhaps more relevant in assessing managerial
behaviour in disciplinary situations. The Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary includes amongst its definition of the term, ``manner of
executing a task or performing an action or operation ... (and ... a kind,
sort, or type, as determined by outward manner or composition or
construction, or by outward appearance ...'' (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, 1978, p. 2162).
In his analysis of approaches to relationships, McGregor argued,
``behind every managerial decision or action are assumptions about
human nature and behaviour (1987, p. 33). McGregor identified Theory X
as the traditional view of direction and control. The premisses on which it
is based are:
. the average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will
avoid it if he/she can;
 . because of this most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, Models, styles
and threatened with punishment in order to obtain the effort needed and metaphors
to achieve organisational activities; and
. the average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid
responsibility, has little ambition, and wants security above all.
Writing in the USA of the 1960s, McGregor believed theory X remained 357
predominant, and that the movement away ``from `hard' and towards `soft'
management ... was short lived ... and for good reasons'' (p. 46). He believed
the movement ``toward ``soft'' management was a temporary and relatively
superficial reaction rather than a general modification of fundamental
assumptions or basic strategy'' (p. 47).
Theory Y is concerned with ``the integration of the individual and
organisational goals''. The premisses on which it is based are:
. the expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as
play or rest; the average human being does not inherently dislike
work;
. external control and the threat of punishment are not the only means
for bringing about effort toward organisational objectives;
. a person will exercise direction and self control in their service of
objectives to which they are committed;
. commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated
with their achievement ± the most significant of such rewards being
the satisfaction of the ego and self-actualisation needs;
. the average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to
accept, but also to seek responsibility;
. the capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination,
ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organisational problems
is widely distributed, in modern industrial life the potential of the
average human being are only partially utilised (McGregor, 1987, p.
47-48).
In Theory Y McGregor considered the nature of relationships and pointed
out that, ``the concept of integration and self control carries the implication
that the organisation will be more effective in achieving its economic
objectives if adjustments are made, in significant ways, to the needs and
goals of its members'' (McGregor, 1987, p. 50). He notes, ``the assumptions
of Theory Y imply that unless integration is achieved the organisation will
suffer'' (p. 52). McGregor adds the important caveat that Theory X should
not be solely associated with hard management and Theory Y only with
soft management. ``acceptance of Theory Y does not imply abdication, or
`soft' management or `permissiveness' ... it is clear that authority is an
appropriate means for control under certain circumstances ± particularly
where genuine commitment to objectives cannot be achieved'' (p. 56). By
Employee emphasising the situational context within which managerial action takes
Relations place, McGregor provides a powerful rationale for arguing that the soft
20,4 versus hard approach to management style, and the punitive versus
corrective models of industrial discipline, are inadequate in providing a
proper understanding of such managerial behaviour.
Cleverley (1971) in Managers and Magic, referring to Theories X and Y
358 noted ``McGregor hoped that his book would lead managers to investigate
the two sets of beliefs, invent others, test out the assumptions underlying
them, and develop managerial strategies that made sense in terms of those
tested views of reality'' (p. 3). Our argument, explored below, is that
managers can best understand their approaches to discipline if we devise
new forms of typology that build on the hard/soft, punitive/corrective
models, and consider the role of metaphors in developing this analysis.

Contexts and the role of metaphors

In Images of the Organisation, Morgan notes that ``metaphor is often just
regarded as a device for embellishing discourse, but its significance is
much greater than this. For the use of metaphor implies a way of thinking
and a way of seeing that pervade how we understand our world generally''
(Morgan, 1986, p. 12). We use metaphor, ``whenever we attempt to
understand one element of experience in terms of another'' (p. 13). He
argues that ``the metaphor frames our understanding ... in a distinctive yet
partial way'' (p. 13). He argues for a plurality of metaphors. ``By using
different metaphors'', we can in the process of ``understanding the complex
and paradoxical character of organisational life ... manage and design
organisations in ways that we may not have thought possible before''
(p. 13).
Although Morgan was writing in the context of organisational
behaviour, similar reasoning can be applied to the management of
discipline. He notes that, ``many practical people believe that theory gets
in the way of practice and that, by and large, theorising is a waste of time.
But there is a great fallacy in this way of thinking. For in recognising how
taken for granted images or metaphors shape understanding and action, we
are recognising the role of theory. Our images or metaphors are theories or
conceptual frameworks. Practice is never theory-free, for it is always
guided by an image of what one is trying to do. The real issue is whether or
not we are aware of the theory guiding our action'' (Morgan, 1986, p. 336).
Accepting that the management of discipline needs to be seen in a
situational context, a manager may some times need to adopt a hard
approach and on other occasions a soft approach. It also suggests that the
dichotomy in the literature between corrective and punitive approaches to
discipline must be discounted, since a corrective approach has usually been
associated with soft management and a punitive approach with hard
management. There may be disciplinary situations in which a hard
management approach is justified, and others in which it is not. We need, Models, styles
therefore, to construct a punitive model which meets the criteria of and metaphors
organisational effectiveness and good employee relations, but there is also
an arbitrary model which meets neither criteria (see Figure 1).
A leading US labour arbitrator committed to the corrective and
educational objectives of discipline accepted that such an approach
might not be appropriate where the ``employee in question was a 359
positive detriment to the safety and efficiency of the workplace or was
obviously unqualified and unable to perform his duties'' (Wallen, 1974, p.
86). McGregor notes that ``some personalities are simply incompatible for
reasons which neither party can do much about ... Under such conditions, it
is nonsense to talk about creating positive expectations, mutual confidence,
a healthy climate. The only real solution is to end the relationship, by
transfer under some circumstances, or by termination of employment under
others'' (McGregor, 1987, p. 142).
In this article, it is argued that managerial behaviour in disciplinary
situations is likely to fit into one of four metaphorical forms. Before
elaborating on these in more detail it is important first to explain the choice
of creatures.
. The lion, although it is a ruthless, is generally regarded as killing for
a specific purpose and good reason.
. The buffalo, is the most feared animal amongst natives being
regarded as dangerous and unpredictable.
. The elephant, while appearing slow and ponderous is strong
purposeful and regarded as intelligent.
. The zebra is one moment dormant and docile, but then swift and
wild.
STYLE
HARD SOFT

(LION) (ELEPHANT)
PUNITIVE CORRECTIVE

GOOD
DISMISSABLE OFFENCES,
FEW PROCEDURAL STAGES BUT
RULES CLEAR, ‘DUE PROCESS’
FOLLOWED
FEW DISMISSABLE OFFENCES
PROCEDURE GIVES LOT OF
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ‘REFORM’
‘DUE PROCESS’ IMPERATIVE

PRACTICE

(BUFFALO) (ZEBRA)
ARBITRARY LAX

BAD MANAGEMENT – CAPRICIOUS FAILURE TO SET STANDARDS

FIRE AT WILL, UNPREDICTABLE,
SUMMARY TREATMENT
OR APPLY RULES, OVER-
INDULGENT ATTITUDE TO RULE Figure 1
BREAKERS, BUT INCONSISTENCIES
The four models of
discipline
Employee The intention is that each of these animal characteristics is reflected in
Relations managerial behaviour related to hard and soft management styles. The lion
20,4 and the elephant represent positive forms of managerial behaviour, the
buffalo and the zebra negative forms.

Hard management: punitive and arbitrary

360 A reconstructed punitive model is associated with a hard management
style, but meets good employee relations practice and organisational needs.
In such situations dismissal is used as a sanction, with few procedural
stages; however, rules should be clear and due process followed. Even
Rieple and Vyakarnam (1996), in arguing for managerial ruthlessness, note
that, ``ruthlessness on its own is not enough. In all the cases of effective
managers studied, this attribute was accompanied by others, such as a
concern for their staff, fairness and equity and was only part of a pattern of
behaviour'' (1996, p. 32).
The metaphor applied to a manager in this situation is lion, strong but
fair, someone who is meeting good employee relations practice and
organisational needs. For example, if the rules state an employee could be
dismissed for one instance of ``being under the influence of alcohol at
work'' this is clear to employees, the reasons explained and justifiable, a
proper and unbiased investigation is conducted. Beyer and Trice (1984) in
their study note, ``supervisors are more likely to use discipline when
company policy encourages it ... The explicit alcoholism policy statement
encouraged the use of discipline not only by telling supervisors what to do
and presumably making them accountable for it ... but also by legitimising
their actions to other subordinates, their peers, their superiors, and
themselves'' (Beyer and Trice, 1984, p. 759).
McGregor (1987) describes a mechanical superintendent in a small
manufacturing company. ``He swore at his men, drove them, disciplined
them, behaved superficially like a Napoleon'', but, ``he was known as a
``square shooter'' who dealt with his men with scrupulous fairness'' (pp.
134-5). ``His managerial attitude cut across authoritarianism,
permissiveness, paternalism, firmness and fairness, and all the other
`styles' of management to create a deep and satisfying emotional certainty
of fair treatment'', (p. 135).
A reconstructed punitive model is distinguished from an arbitrary
model. The reconstructed punitive model legitimises managerial action. By
contrast the arbitrary model is associated with a hard management style,
but one which fails to meet good employee relations practice or
organisational needs. In the arbitrary model management behaves in a
capricious and unpredictable way, and fire at will in treating people
summarily. The metaphor applied to a manager in this situation is buffalo,
someone who is strong, but mean and unpredictable. This may be bad
employee relations practice which offers no guarantee that organisational
needs will be met. For example an employee may be dismissed for one
drinking offence where management has previously condoned or Models, styles
encouraged such behaviour. The policy and rules may not be clear to and metaphors
employees, and there may have been no investigation or at best one proved
to be inadequate. In these circumstances managerial action will be
regarded as illegitimate by the work force and external bodies.

Soft management: corrective v. lax 361

A reconstructed corrective model is associated with soft management.
There are few dismissible offences, the stages of procedure and the way
they are operated give plenty of opportunity for reform, while due process
is imperative. The metaphor applied to a manager in this situation is
elephant, someone whose style is soft, but who behaves fairly and is
respected. If appropriate, in the circumstances, a manager of this sort
would give an employee who had committed drink-related offences the
opportunity to attend an employee assistance programme, as opposed to
taking other forms of action. However, if such methods failed the elephant
would dismiss if needed, and like the lion the actions would be perceived as
legitimate by the workforce and external agencies.
A variant of the corrective model is the lax model which would also be
associated with soft management, but fails to meet either good employee
relations practice or organisational needs. The metaphor applied to a
manager in this situation is zebra, where the manager is deficient and
disorganised. In these situations there is a failure to set standards or apply
rules, and there is an over indulgent attitude towards rule breakers. There
are also inconsistencies in the treatment of situations, delayed
interventions or over-reactions to situations. An example is a situation
where heavy drinking among employees has been condoned, without
regard to production losses or the consequences for safety, and where rules
on alcohol are improperly and inconsistently applied.
An example of zebras is found in a study by Amsa (1986) of ``loitering
rates'' in Indian mills. He discovered that, ``in the high loitering mill, the
majority of the workers believed that their supervisors were not genuinely
concerned about either the production or the workers. An attitude of
apathy coupled with powerlessness and helplessness prevailed among the
supervisory staff. They believed that management could not do anything
against the workers in the case of misconduct like loitering'' (p. 355).

Metaphors and caveats

Du Gay et al. (1996) have argued that ``a crucial component of
contemporary organisational governance is the way in which managers
fashion themselves as certain sorts of person'' (p. 278). According to Chia
(1996), ``imagination is the wilful act of establishing conceptual connections
between hitherto unrelated ideas ... and experienced phenomena in a
Employee manner which gives fresh insights into the subtleties of our lived
Relations experience. Such connections make human situations more coherent and
20,4 hence more amenable to appropriate intervention ...'' (p. 422).
Metaphors allow insights into the ways managers approach disciplinary
situations. In this article it is argued that, depending on the situational
context, the lion and elephant metaphors are ones that managers can adopt,
362 in that both meet the criteria of good employee relations and organisational
effectiveness described earlier in this article. Conversely, the buffalo and
zebra metaphors are not ones that should be followed, but awareness of
such metaphorical forms allow managers and organisations to examine
how satisfactorily disciplinary situations are dealt with.
There are two important qualifications to the above analysis. The first
relates to situations in which managers deliberately choose not to
discipline workers because it does not suit, ``the broader objectives of
management and the situation in which it finds itself'', (Edwards, 1989,
p. 316). This could be the result of labour market factors such as labour
shortages, or product market factors such as urgent targets to be met.
There may also be internal political factors at work. The second
qualification arises where management's decision to discipline an
individual disregards the criteria of good employee relations and focuses
on its perception of organisational effectiveness, and where management
believes it has the political resources and power to effect its decision. In
such instances organisations might be willing to ``take a strike'' or pay out
legal compensation. In 1943, Kalecki predicted ``Businessmen ... would
resist attempts to stimulate demand and minimise unemployment, even if
thereby they were to lose the boom on which their profits must depend ...
Under a regime of permanent full employment, the sack would cease to
play its role as a disciplinary measure ... discipline in the factories and
``political stability'' are more appreciated by business leaders than profits''
(Kalecki, quoted in Hunter and Schwartz, 1972).

Conclusions
It has been argued that discipline continues to be a workplace problem, and
that the established models of punitive and corrective approaches do not
provide an adequate framework for understanding the way in which
disciplinary situations are managed. It has also been contended ``hard'' and
``soft'' models of management style are deficient in appreciating how
managers handle the situational contexts within which they operate.
However, these models provide a starting point for developing a
typology based on animal metaphors identifying four possible approaches
to discipline. Two of these the lion and the elephant metaphor meet the
criteria of good employee relations and organisational effectiveness and
legitimise managerial actions, the other two buffalo and zebra provide
ways of analysing managerial inadequacies, where behaviour is not
legitimised and the criteria asserted above is not met.
 Metaphors such as these do not explain every situation. Further research Models, styles
is required to consider whether the approach managers adopt is a result of and metaphors
their own psychological make up, or organisational factors such as specific
strategic aims, organisational policy and goals (Edwards, 1989, p. 306),
corporate culture (Amas, 1986, pp. 348-62), workplace politics, or other
factors (Beyer and Trice, 1984, p. 757).
Managers are not necessarily free to choose their metaphorical forms; it 363
is reasonable to conclude the nature of the industry, the labour market, the
product market, union and work force strength, social values and
employment law all have a bearing on a manager's actions. These
considerations have to be seen in the context of whether organisations
adopt a coherent and proactive approach to the management of the
disciplinary process, or whether it is something that is left to chance. The
roar of the lion or the charge of the buffalo?

(Anthony Fenley is a Researcher and Consultant, based in Oxford, England.)

References
ACAS (1976), Code of Practice 1: Disciplinary Practice and Procedures in Employment,
ACAS, London.
ACAS (1987), Discipline at Work: The ACAS Advisory Booklet, ACAS, London, revised 1990.
ACAS (1998), Annual Report: 1997, ACAS, London.
Amsa, P. (1986), ``Organisational culture and work group behaviour: an empirical study'',
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3.
Anderman, S.D. (1972), Voluntary Dismissals Procedure and the Industrial Relations Act,
PEP, London.
Arvey, R.D. and Ivancevich, J.M. (1980), ``Punishment in organisations: a review,
propositions and research suggestions'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5.
Ashdown, R.T. and Baker, K.H. (1973), In Working Order: A Study of Industrial Discipline,
Manpower Paper No. 6, Department of Employment, London.
Banderet, M.E. (1986), ``Discipline at the workplace: a comparative study of law and
practice, I: the sources and substance of disciplinary law'', International Labour Review,
Vol. 125 No. 3.
Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1984), ``A field study of the use and perceived effects of
discipline in controlling work performance'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27
No. 4.
Chia, R (1996), ``Teaching paradigm shifting in management education: university business
schools and the entrepreneurial imagination'', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33
No. 4.
Cleverley, G. (1971), Managers and Magic, Longman, London.
Crozier, M. (1964), The Bureaucratic Phenomena, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Dobson, J.R. (1982), ``What is good industrial relations?'', Employee Relations, Vol. 4 No. 2.
Du Gay, P., Salaman, G. and Rees, C.B. (1996), ``The conduct of management and the
management of conduct: contemporary managerial discourse and the constitution of the
competent manager'', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3.
Employee Edwards, P.K. (1989), ``The three faces of discipline'', in Sissons, K. (Ed.), Personnel
Management in Britain, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Relations Elias, P. (1981), ``Fairness in unfair dismissal: trends and tensions'', Industrial Law Journal,
20,4 Vol. 109 No. 4.
Fenley, A. (1984), ``Attitudes towards industrial discipline'', unpublished ESRC report.
Goodrich, C. (1975), The Frontier of Control: A Study in British Workplace Politics, Pluto
364 Press Edition, London.
Gouldner, A.W. (1954), Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy: A Case Study of Modern Factory
Administration, Free Press, New York, NY.
Henry, S. (1983), Private Justice: Towards Integrated Theorising in the Sociology of Law,
Routlege Kegan and Paul, London.
Hopcraft, A. (1992), ``The football man'', The Observer, 12 April.
Huberman, J. (1964), ``Discipline without punishment'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 42
No. 4, pp. 62-8.
Hunter, E.K. and Schwartz, J.G. (Eds) (1972), A Critique of Economic Theory, Penguin,
Harmondsworth.
Jones, D. L. (1961), Arbitration and Industrial Discipline, Bureau of Industrial Relations,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbour, MI.
Kalecki, M. (1943), ``The political consequences of full employment'', in Hunter, E.K. and
Schwartz, J.G. (Eds), A Critique of Economic Theory, Penguin, Harmondsworth,
pp. 420-30.
Locke, R.R. (1996), The Collapse of the American Management Mystique, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
McGregor, D. (1987), The Human Side of Enterprise, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Mellish, M. and Collis Squires, N. (1976), ``Legal and social norms in discipline and
dismissals'', Industrial Law Journal, September, Vol. 5.
Morgan, G. (1986), Images of the Organisation, Sage, London.
Osigweh, C.A.B. and Hutchison, W.H. (1990), ``To punish or not to punish'', Personnel
Review, Vol. 12 No. 3.
Redeker, J. (1983), Discipline: Policies and Procedures, Bureau of National Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Rieple, A. and Vyakarnam, S. (1996), ``The case for managerial ruthlessness'', British
Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 1.
Wallen, S. (1974), The Saul Wallen Papers, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Wheeler, H.N. (1976), ``Punishment theory and industrial discipline'', Industrial Relations,
Vol. 15 No. 2.