Is This the Right Punishment?
It's really refreshing to hear that most of the posts coming into this thread are indeed borne of positive thinking and constructive convictions, not only for the cause of the female employee but even towards the male employee. Thanks to many posts, whose authors seem to be in a better position to counsel the male employee (for slapping) to rectify his conduct, even as nobody really knows if the female employee who was at the receiving end is guilty as such, and if so, to what extent. However, the paradox being what it is, it is sad to realize that perhaps even a few HR people too need counseling for their 'inside the den surmising'.
The irony is that it is these few who ironically champion the cause of 'out of the box thinking' as a precious value, which is taught as a lesson in their HR training and orientation. 'Enforcing discipline' is just an alibi/cover for the misguided HR functionaries to come down heavily on helpless/innocent one-time erring employees. The reasons are obvious; they fear the management under the misconceived assumptions that all managements are always autocratic, and that their interest lies in misreporting the truth/blindly supporting the management for reasons best known to them, especially in cases of this nature. It's not difficult to find instances where value-centered (not discipline-hardened) HR functionaries have even walked out of organizations where managements were very highhandedly dealing against the interests and concerns of employees and managers.
A weak-minded HR can never influence an informed or uninformed management to adopt a correct course of positive action towards the employees, let alone the alleged erring and wrong ones. He is the one who, being in his own shell, more remains a part of the problem but never a part of the solution. The old adage rightly fits into his scheme of things which says, 'in between the God and devotee, there still remains a priest who is the first to dispose of the case of the devotee, no wonder even if it goes against God's wish.'
Now, coming to one vital point of dealing with such an employee's alleged misconduct if proved against him is, 'to take an overall view of the employee's case,' that is, his entire track record of service, apart from only one alleged misconduct. In this case, but for this incident, the track records/performance of both employees are excellent, according to their superiors/managers. Their apology, together with a suitable reassurance on their part to the organization, is adequate to close this case, which touches upon both the interests of the organization and the employee.
The overzealous misapprehensions of a few of the HRs, managements, and their likes, that any mitigating factors going in favor of the employee but are against the organizational culture, are quite misplaced and even sordidly imaginary. There can seldom be an ideal dealing situation in handling disciplinary cases. It's the prime duty of the HR, whether he is a single individual or the department, to create ideal terms, particularly in cases of this type. He or she, i.e., the HR, should know that he or she can either create a devil or a god of an erring employee.
What if either the boy or the girl, or even both, had the solid backing of some influential and powerful person in society? What if such an unfortunate termination of service is given to our own sister or perhaps an erring brother under the cover of collecting a confession from them but under disguised duress and captive coercion? Do we then still give short and long sermons on 'Discipline' and 'organizational culture'? In such a case, the guiding heart of the HR/management should prompt the application of their mind if serious about generating human resources rather than just having a figurehead HR who cannot discern right and wrong under a developing situation in a given context.
Much is spoken about the IT industry and all that in this thread by a few friends to drive home that only its working/service conditions are very tough and worthy. Satyam Company still exists in the operative environment despite its scams indulged in by the higher-ups. Its reputation, even the country's IT reputation, did receive a severe beating. But when there has been a course correction for Satyam to rebuild things at the very macro level, why then do the HRs find it so difficult to constructively and positively handle this case, which is devoid of any fraud, misappropriation, malpractices, loss, pecuniary benefit, undue favor, malafide, threats to the staff/managers/company, and all that?
Well, I do not know for certain if a few of the HR friends who have taken a contrary position introspect. Yet, I definitely consider spending my quality time on this post quite worthy. No wonder then, even if the result may go bad, but the prayer is secured, as a great many posts received under this thread indicate a trend that people working in organizations are mostly positive. This, even if a few of the HRs by themselves make their way difficult to adapt to this trend and still remain as exceptions to the generally accepted functional norms.
For, after all, exceptions prove the rule.
It's really refreshing to hear that most of the posts coming into this thread are indeed borne of positive thinking and constructive convictions, not only for the cause of the female employee but even towards the male employee. Thanks to many posts, whose authors seem to be in a better position to counsel the male employee (for slapping) to rectify his conduct, even as nobody really knows if the female employee who was at the receiving end is guilty as such, and if so, to what extent. However, the paradox being what it is, it is sad to realize that perhaps even a few HR people too need counseling for their 'inside the den surmising'.
The irony is that it is these few who ironically champion the cause of 'out of the box thinking' as a precious value, which is taught as a lesson in their HR training and orientation. 'Enforcing discipline' is just an alibi/cover for the misguided HR functionaries to come down heavily on helpless/innocent one-time erring employees. The reasons are obvious; they fear the management under the misconceived assumptions that all managements are always autocratic, and that their interest lies in misreporting the truth/blindly supporting the management for reasons best known to them, especially in cases of this nature. It's not difficult to find instances where value-centered (not discipline-hardened) HR functionaries have even walked out of organizations where managements were very highhandedly dealing against the interests and concerns of employees and managers.
A weak-minded HR can never influence an informed or uninformed management to adopt a correct course of positive action towards the employees, let alone the alleged erring and wrong ones. He is the one who, being in his own shell, more remains a part of the problem but never a part of the solution. The old adage rightly fits into his scheme of things which says, 'in between the God and devotee, there still remains a priest who is the first to dispose of the case of the devotee, no wonder even if it goes against God's wish.'
Now, coming to one vital point of dealing with such an employee's alleged misconduct if proved against him is, 'to take an overall view of the employee's case,' that is, his entire track record of service, apart from only one alleged misconduct. In this case, but for this incident, the track records/performance of both employees are excellent, according to their superiors/managers. Their apology, together with a suitable reassurance on their part to the organization, is adequate to close this case, which touches upon both the interests of the organization and the employee.
The overzealous misapprehensions of a few of the HRs, managements, and their likes, that any mitigating factors going in favor of the employee but are against the organizational culture, are quite misplaced and even sordidly imaginary. There can seldom be an ideal dealing situation in handling disciplinary cases. It's the prime duty of the HR, whether he is a single individual or the department, to create ideal terms, particularly in cases of this type. He or she, i.e., the HR, should know that he or she can either create a devil or a god of an erring employee.
What if either the boy or the girl, or even both, had the solid backing of some influential and powerful person in society? What if such an unfortunate termination of service is given to our own sister or perhaps an erring brother under the cover of collecting a confession from them but under disguised duress and captive coercion? Do we then still give short and long sermons on 'Discipline' and 'organizational culture'? In such a case, the guiding heart of the HR/management should prompt the application of their mind if serious about generating human resources rather than just having a figurehead HR who cannot discern right and wrong under a developing situation in a given context.
Much is spoken about the IT industry and all that in this thread by a few friends to drive home that only its working/service conditions are very tough and worthy. Satyam Company still exists in the operative environment despite its scams indulged in by the higher-ups. Its reputation, even the country's IT reputation, did receive a severe beating. But when there has been a course correction for Satyam to rebuild things at the very macro level, why then do the HRs find it so difficult to constructively and positively handle this case, which is devoid of any fraud, misappropriation, malpractices, loss, pecuniary benefit, undue favor, malafide, threats to the staff/managers/company, and all that?
Well, I do not know for certain if a few of the HR friends who have taken a contrary position introspect. Yet, I definitely consider spending my quality time on this post quite worthy. No wonder then, even if the result may go bad, but the prayer is secured, as a great many posts received under this thread indicate a trend that people working in organizations are mostly positive. This, even if a few of the HRs by themselves make their way difficult to adapt to this trend and still remain as exceptions to the generally accepted functional norms.
For, after all, exceptions prove the rule.