Experience of Hotel Personnel Concerning Disciplinary Procedures in Four-Star Hotels

Literature review

This literature review presents a study on the experience of hotel personnel concerning disciplinary procedures in four-star hotels. It involves a review of secondary sources that employed qualitative approaches where participants shared their experiences in various studies. Among the materials that are critical for this review, include results from focus groups where they share information regarding the disciplinary procedures in at their workstations.

The implementation of written disciplinary procedures in the work environment is increasingly becoming a common feature within the hotel industry. The Disciplinary procedures refer to frameworks that guide how managers in hotels deal issues of misconduct. It also revolves issues of conduct and grievances in general, in addition to complaints in the work environment. Organizations in the hospitality sector have faced numerous challenges in dealing with challenges relating to grievances at work. Many firms in the hospitality sector are increasingly adopting their use as governments are increasingly promoting it. The motivation of the adoption of these procedures is that they reinforce good employment practices and human resource management.

Public policy and Law

Public policy emphasizes the adoption of written disciplinary procedures in the hotel sector given the fact that some employees have reported unfair dismissal from their places of the work. In fact, the disciplinary procedures work as dispute resolution mechanisms to cater to the welfare of aggrieved employees while maintaining the integrity of institutions. Many companies in the hospitality sector are making an effort to find ways they can use to manage conflicts effectively. The disciplinary procedures act as alternative measures in the realization of harmony between employers and workers in the hotel industry. This paper seeks to examine the extent and nature of disciplinary and grievance procedures within four star hotel establishments.

This study seeks to report the extent and nature of disciplinary and grievance procedures within the hotel industry. The investigation will seek to develop an evidence-based link between incidences of dismissal, grievances, disciplinary sanctions, and the disciplinary procedures seeking to address disputes. Resources such as the workplace Employment Relations Study of 2011 also provide significant materials to compare the disciplinary procedures used by various institutions.

There is no sufficient resources in terms of literature that cover the topic of disciplinary procedure in the workplace. The available evidence dwells on the workplace processes procedures that managers and employers use in addressing concerns involving employees. It is essential to note that the study also covers the legal and regulatory context of the implementation of a specific disciplinary procedure. The legal framework outlines an employee’s right to rely on the established disciplinary procedures whenever they experience grievances. In addition, a written document can be used in dispute resolution especially in instances where the employees were not accorded an opportunity to share their side of the story.

The Employment Relations of Act of 1999 provides a guide on the extent that employers can engage to address grievances of employees. The guidance illustrated by the disciplinary procedures revolve around three main principles including the need to hold a meeting to talk about the problem, the right to appeal against a decision that directly affects the employee, and the need to address the matter in writing. The guideline helps the dispute resolution tribunal handle the case in a manner that ensures that both the employer and employee do not undergo unfair treatment.

Procedures are effective in preventing managers from utilizing less formal approaches in handling issues in the work environment. Essentially, they provide standards that eliminate other approaches that do not consider employee concerns. The procedures have become a center of attention given the fact that it provides reasonable and reliable ways of resolving disputes. The procedure not only help resolve conflicts, but also deal with issues that can be resolved in less form ways. In fact, it also reduces the inappropriate use of formal processes that may involve the use of an organization’s resources.

The focus of this section is on the integration of disciplinary concepts in a manner that helps the organization realize effectiveness and efficiency. The review focuses on the development of a management system that is supported by disciplinary procedure. The research will seek to explore a number of debates and some of the efforts that have been employed in the development of the targeted systems. It is notable that the definitions of the two main terms may vary from different schools of thought and the review of the literature will explore all the possibilities to achieve a better understanding of the matters. The fact that disciplinary procedure has connections with employee conduct just means that it acts as a source of support employee and vital in realizing improvement of efficiency and effectiveness of dispute resolution. Disciplinary procedure involves developing a connection between ideas and solutions to the dynamic market to realize substantial benefits in business.

Disciplinary procedure has always been an important undertaking for businesses because of the intense competition that exists in the market. It is essential helping organizations improve the value of their products and services which is an important factor in improving competition. Most organizations have also been able to resolve the problems their consumers face because of their effort to apply innovative strategies. It varies in nature based on the dictates of the industry and the nature of the market. The innovativeness of a company improve to its ability to develop new products and services with higher precision or sophistication. Knowledge management is critical as it ensures that organizations apply knowledge accordingly to ensure that all benefits to the business are achieved.

Job satisfaction and disciplinary issues

According to (Maslow, 1954), human needs can be placed in five- level hierarchy. These needs range from psychological needs, safety, belongingness and love, esteem to self-actualization. Job satisfaction can also be explained as one of the ways of need fulfilment. An employee being satisfied or not being satisfied at the workplace not only depends on the nature of the job but also the deliverables of the job itself. The expectations of the job position will determine the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of an employee.

Job satisfaction is influenced by factors like salary, working environment, organizational commitment, autonomy and communication. Compensation at the workplace mean different things to different people (Brikend, 2011, p. 77). (Dr.Mishara, 2013, p. 45) agrees with (Brikend, 2011, p. 77) that compensation can be in the form of salary, wages, reward, recognition etcetera. Compensation of employees is a very crucial part of ensuring retention and high turnover in the organisation. Mentorship in the organisation especially if it non-supervisory mentorship, instils confidence in employees. A supervisor is needed in an organisation to for the sake of organizational change. However, a supervisor is not really needed to ensure employee satisfaction. The presence of a supervisor to ensure employee satisfaction has positive impact on the outcomes.

Good management of disciplinary procedures and healthy interaction among employees result into individual employee’s satisfaction. Workers also prefer environments that promotes their physical comfort in the workplace. When the physical comfort is absent, the worker might end up not satisfied and therefore choose to leave the workplace. The impacts of satisfying employees at the workplace are so many.

Satisfaction is likely to be high in organisations with proper disciplinary procedures. One cannot say that an employee should be satisfied first before being productive. Rather employees who are productive are highly satisfied. An organisation should therefore strive to promote disciplinary procedure among employees, which will in turn make them happy hence more disciplinary procedure. According to Abbott, J. (2003, p. 333) dissatisfied employees tend to have unnecessary cases of absenteeism at the workplace. This avoidable absenteeism can be fewer if the employees are more conducive environments, with good compensation and non-supervisory mentorship. Satisfied employees are less likely to quit their jobs. Most performers in an organisation are less likely to quit their jobs because they are satisfied. Defiance at the workplace is less likely to happen when employees are productive and happy (Hoppock, 1935, p. 47). Rather employees will perform to the extent that they will exceed the set standards of the organisation.

Job performance is a common variable that is normally researched with job satisfaction. Job performance is defined as the value that the company derives from employees when they behave in a discrete way. There is a difference between behavior and performance. Behavior is what people do while performance is the value that an organisation derives from that behavior. Job performance is behavioral, can be evaluated and is multidimensional. There are two types of job performances. There is task performance and contextual performance. Task performance is when an employee’s performs a task as described in their job description. Contextual performance is when one goes the extra mile to volunteer to perform a task out of their job description. Contextual performance includes working as a team with colleagues to help them complete their task assigned to them. Both contextual and task performances contribute to the final job performance. Job satisfaction and job performance are positively correlated.

Judge et al. (2001) reviewed literature that assessed the correlation between job satisfaction and job performance. Their meta-analysis resulted in then categorizing studies on the proposed correlation into seven models. Findings from the first six models came out to be contradictory and conflicting. The meta-analysis came up with the conclusion that the link between job satisfaction and job performance is weak. A rather stronger link exists between job satisfaction and firm performance.

Research shows that the link between job satisfaction and job performance is weak. However, there is stronger link between job satisfaction and firm performance. It means loyal employees and customers are most likely to result in higher production in an organisation. When employees are well treated internally, they in turn treat customers well resulted in higher organisation revenue production. Loyal employees are likely to attract loyal customers that ensure higher profitability for the organisation. Therefore, in conclusion, there exists a quantifiable link between satisfied employees, loyal customers and financial results. This knowledge gap can still be exploited to give better results. It can still be researched to ascertain the link between job satisfaction and financial performance of the firm.

Disciplinary procedure is an essential undertaking that allow business owners to address complaints that employees may have to resolve them amicably. It enables managers to make decisions regarding the changes that can help organizations achieve success and improve competitiveness. This is an aspect of business that enable business leaders to measure the perceptions of their consumers regarding the services they offer against what their competitors offer (Peris-Ortiz & Álvarez-García, 2014). It utilizes a logic that revolves around the convergence of competitiveness that is evident in business environments, which cares about the needs of its clients.

There has been a challenge in determining the difference between the expectations of customers and the solutions provided by managers as a response. This arises from insufficient or lack of information that flows from the customer all the way to the level of management. The services provided by every entity undergoes critical review to help prioritize and initiate improvements in specific areas in a way that will lead to the realization of a competitive advantage (Edvardsson, 1998). The literature review is about the efforts of small and large enterprises in becoming more efficient based on the disciplinary procedure initiatives they undertake. The reasons for undertaking this literature review is to establish why some managers are yet to adopt disciplinary procedures as a way of attaining competitive advantage.

Organizational policies

Identifying differences in the varying disciplinary procedures is a challenge given the similarities in most of them. This will also cover the cost implications of employing poor disciplinary procedures techniques in various processes (Lawrence & Klimberg, 2014). This means that the literature review will highlight the problems and associated solutions that can help concerned organizations to achieve success in their business processes. The quality of service provided by a specific service provider to a client is dependent on the outcome of the solution to the problem presented by a customer. There is substantial focus on the customer that has also been incorporated in production processes, which include manufacturing of products.

Previous literature review conducted by Grigoroudis and Siskos (2010) show that the concept of disciplinary procedure is on the rise and most organizations are increasingly adopting it. Findings of past literature review indicate that the outcome of disciplinary procedures is dependent on the level of satisfaction and whether the expectations have been met. This indicates that much of the focus was on the consumers and the fact that consumers are willing to pay for the best quality. Satisfying the needs of the client or customer provides the foundation of service provision. The gaps model has largely been employed as a standard of measure in conducting an analysis of poor disciplinary procedures (Grigoroudis & Siskos, 2010). The model provides illustrations of the main sources of problems associated with disciplinary procedures.

The current volatility experienced in the dynamic hotel industry requires organizations to pay attention to various aspects the influence productivity. Businesses can achieve competitive advantage by expanding their hotel industry share. Disciplinary procedure is essential because it leads to the creation of new opportunities that can help ensure businesses organizations realize success in their operations (Banfield & Rebecca, 2012). On the other hand, disciplinary procedure leads to the optimization of offerings that exist within organizations that can be adopted to achieve success. They are common in manufacturing and engineering operations because of the vast amount of resources utilized in such settings.

There is a need for companies to integrate disciplinary procedure in their operations to help them withstand the dynamic nature of the hotel industry. Essentially, organizations stand to encounter new opportunities that is likely to help them achieve better fortunes and growth. These developments need to coincide with the need to enhance quality and efficiency that can lead to attainment of higher quality of gods and services (Banfield & Rebecca, 2012). This is essential in sustaining the competitive advantage that the company may be enjoying in its position. Organizations need to focus their energies on achieving more efficient and reliable innovative processes and other techniques seeking to improve efficiency. Disciplinary procedure is important in organizational management because it helps businesses realize better opportunities and in terms employee management.

Disciplinary procedures revolves around strategies and way of thinking in a manner that helps the organization improve its effectiveness. It is essential to note that integrating disciplinary procedures with dispute resolution is matter that is debatable because of the nature of their application. Disciplinary procedure is centered on standards whereas disciplinary procedure revolves around creativity that is dependent on freedom for proper actualization. There is a chance that there might be a challenge in the integration of the disciplinary procedure because of the differences evident in the two elements. This means that the management will have to embrace various the tradeoffs that can create implications those changes to the whole system.

Understanding grievance procedure is vital in evaluating the application of disciplinary action in an organization. The extent to which one is likely to commit an offence also matter as it determines the level of application of a disciplinary procedure. People’s obedience to authority varies based on the behavior of an individual and it shape the how they respond to workplace rules and regulation. The following factors influence the level of influence and the likelihood of being obedient. Family has an influence on the propensity of an individual to be obedient as it helps develop respect for one another and the authority of parents. This upbringing enables individuals to respect authority as they understand the benefits of respect. The institutional setting that one associates with also influences their possibility of showing obedience to authority. Institutions such as school, social, and work settings inculcate a culture of respect to authority, which also helps develop a respectful behavior to authorities.

Notably, the ability to comply with rules and requirement of certain settings may lead to rewards based on a positive or a negative outcome. Following managerial and organization rules is an indication that one is obedient and cares about the authority he or she serves. Perception authority refers to a predisposition to follow rules and requirements of an organization without exposure to any pressure (Peris-Ortiz & Álvarez-García, 2012). On the other hand, an organization may decide to take action for failure to comply.

Regulations and codes

The ACAS code of practice act as a guide on the expected behavior of an employee in an organization. This acts as a model that acts as the standards that dictate how employees should behave in a work setting. The standard practice according to the code of practice include the fact that the procedure should be in writing, should not be discriminatory, specific to whomever it applies to and ensures that the authority addresses prevailing matters promptly. Essentially, it should ensure all the information regarding past, present matters are secure, and that they are confidential (Peris-Ortiz & Álvarez-García, 2012). The code outlines the state that the authorities may implement the disciplinary action once they ascertain that there are conduct issues. Moreover, the code also specify the level of management that has the authority to execute a disciplinary procedure. This also states the processes that the management need to follow to take a disciplinary action appropriately.

The code further outlines the kind of interaction that occurs between managers and employees where it states that managers need to accord their employees the chance to argue their case. Giving the employ a chance to defend their position is just and ensures that chances of discrimination are minimal (Peris-Ortiz & Álvarez-García, 2012). Employees also need to feel that they will get justice in the case they may be facing disciplinary action. Therefore, allowing a trade union to accompany an employee is a show that the management cares about the welfare of the employee.

The fact that the employees has the opportunity to state their case and have the support of a trade union representative means that they are likely to have confidence that the hearing will be fair (Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005). The management also needs to consider their position to ensure that they do not dismiss for an offence of breach, for the first time. The only exception should in the case the employee is guilty of the offence of gross misconduct (Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005). The fact that the standards provides the employer and the employee a chance to defend their position means that fair treatment is a guarantee and both sides are likely to realize an acceptable outcome after the hearing.

The standard also state that a manager ought to take disciplinary action only after analyzing the case carefully and establishing who is at fault. Studies show that a decision taken in haste to reprimand an employee during disciplinary action may lead to unfair judgement if the hearing did not consider all factors. The management ought to investigate all claims and ensure that the outcomes addresses all issues associated with the case before the hearing (Gennard & Graham, 2005).

The management must show cause for the entire penalty it accords an employee to ensure transparency and clarity in the administration of a disciplinary action. The authority needs to ensure that they do not hide any information from the employee as it eliminates the possibility of mistrust that may occur because of withholding information regarding an offense. Furthermore, it is vital that the hearing provides an employee with the right to appeal as the there is a chance there might be an unfair judgement for the lack of sufficient evidence (Pigors & Myers, 19977). The employee may have the opportunity to present a conclusive argument with the support of evidence that reverses and initial judgement.

The literature review reveals the occurrence of varying organizational responses to conduct issues within an organization (Banfield & Rebecca, 2012). Recognizing this fact is vital as it directs research on the severity of the application of disciplinary action in different organizations. In fact, all that an organization may need is a cautionary word from a manager to employee turn around his or her performance. This is applicable in the instance of misconduct that may yield extreme results when a manager acts immediately and dismisses the employee without making the necessary considerations regarding a matter.

According to a recent Industrial Relations Study (IRS), employee attendance stood out as the most common instance of misconduct in research involving about 100 participants (Banfield & Rebecca, 2012). Others issues that prompted disciplinary action include performance, time keeping, general behavior, capability, and behavior (Banfield & Rebecca, 2012). Most firms are likely to categorize these issues as minor cases of misconduct that require simple responses to help the employees address their shortcomings. It is essential that authorities follow due procedure when addressing any issue regardless of whether it is a minor offence or a case of gross misconduct (Price, 1994). This is something that all managers should consider when they intend to meet the accepted standards and treat their employees fairly.

According to Banfield and Rebecca (2012), employers have a duty to utilize disciplinary action in totality when addressing issues of misconduct against their employees. Everyone including employees need to see that the decision to dismiss an employee was fair as there was opportunity to provide a reasonable defense. Moreover, the authority should also demonstrate aspects of legality and moral sensibility in the process since employees understand the disciplinary procedures well. An organization must act in a manner that is not only ethical, but also reasonable to ensure that they treat employers treat their employees with the dignity they deserve (Banfield & Rebecca, 2012).

An organization need to show that it acted equitably and followed all the procedures as anything contrary to that translates to unfair treatment. The fact that an employee accepts that they committed an offence and the reasons for their dismissal are reasonable provides an indication that the organization acted fairly in taking a certain disciplinary action. Availing the disciplinary procedures to the employees also ensures that the employees are aware of the disciplinary action they are likely to undergo when they commit an offense.

References

• Banfield, P, & Rebecca, K. (2012). Introduction to Human Resource Management. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
• Edvardsson, B. (April 01, 1998). Disciplinary procedure. Managing Disciplinary procedures: an International Journal, 8, 2, 142-149.
• Gennard, J, & Graham, J. (2005). Employee Relations. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2005. Print.
• Grigoroudis, E., & Siskos, Y. (2010). Customer satisfaction evaluation: Methods for measuring and implementing disciplinary procedures. New York: Springer.
• Lawrence, K. D., & Klimberg, R. K. (2014). Advances in business and management forecasting: Vol. 10. Bingley, U.K: Emerald.
• Peris-Ortiz, M., & Álvarez-García, J. (2014). Action-based conduct management: Strategy and tools for continuous improvement. Cham: Springer.
• Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J. et al. (2006) Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, Routledge.
• Marchington, M. & Wilkinson, A. (2005) Human Resource Management at Work: People Management and Development, 3rd edition, CIPD.
• Price, L. (1994) ‘Poor personnel practice in the hotel and catering industry – does it matter?’, Human Resource Management Journal, 4(4), 44–62.
• Pigors, P. & Myers, C. S. (1977) Personnel Administration, McGraw Hill, 8th edition.
• Rayner, J. (1998) ‘Bolshie staff? We have ways of purging them’, Observer, 13 December, 6.
• Roche, W. K., Teague, P., & Colvin, A. J. (2014). The Oxford handbook of conflict management in organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Salamon, M. (2000) Industrial Relations – Theory and Practice, 4th edition, Prentice Hall.
• Taylor, S. & Emir, A. (2006) Employment Law: An Introduction, Oxford University Press.