Discipline

Conceptual Overview

The first set of relationships is encountered in the downward hierarchical interactions between superiors and subordinates. Superiors use external means like punishment and reward or exhortation and admonition in order to get subordinates to comply with expectations. Decisions to reward or punish are usually based on ostensibly rational indicators (e.g., attendance records or information gained during regular performance appraisals) and are commonly enacted in formal settings such as disciplinary hearings or wage determination processes. It is not uncommon, however, for superiors to make irrational judgments about their subordinates' performance, and managers may also resort to informal methods of reward and punishment such as personal intimidation and bullying or patronage and nepotism.

The second set of relationships centers on the way in which peers regulate each other's conduct. For example, the Human Relations School noted the way in which groups of workers would use informal disciplinary means in order to restrict the output of “ratebusters” (i.e., those whose excessive enthusiasm or superior performance might embarrass less able or less willing workers) and punish “chisellers” (i.e., free riders who attempted to hide their lack of effort within the group's overall activities). More recently, William Ouchi's discussion of the “clannish” nature of the relationships within organizations echoes the Human Relations School's observations concerning the impact of peer-to-peer discipline and, with the current interest in the apparent benefits of teamwork, these horizontal disciplinary mechanisms are taking on an increasingly formalized hue as organizations look to self-managing teams as an alternative to traditional hierarchies.

The third set of relationships centers on the way in which subordinates attempt to exert a degree of control over their superiors (an upward hierarchical configuration). Again, this can be through formal means, such as when employees use consultation mechanisms to signal that their superiors' expectations are unreasonable. Other formal means that seek to influence the conduct of superiors include dispute resolution processes and strike action, while covert and informal means include “go-slows,” “foot dragging,” and other subtle forms of resistance.

An interesting example of the combination of these upward, downward, and horizontal disciplinary forces can be found in what has recently been popularized in the human resource management literature as “360-degree appraisal.” Here superiors continue the tradition of appraising the performance of subordinates, but this is augmented by subordinates' appraisal of their superiors and also by peerto-peer evaluation. Although this is often presented as a more effective and equitable form of appraisal, one must remember that the fundamental asymmetries of power in organizations mean that subordinates may be reluctant to voice their true feelings about superiors, while peer-to-peer appraisals are easily distorted by jealousy, petty rivalries, and other feelings of animosity.

...