Is It Fair to Have Different Rules for Employees? How Would You Handle This Boss's Dilemma?

A situation analysis

Let's consider a scenario: there is a boss with two subordinates, A and B.

A: arrives late but is very efficient in his work.
B: always arrives on time but is less efficient.

Incident overview

One day, B arrives one hour late, prompting the boss to ask him to submit an application for half a day off, or else face disciplinary action. However, B argues that this rule is not generally applied to anyone, especially to Mr. A, and therefore refuses to submit the application.

Discussion questions

Q1. Do you think the boss is wrong in handling the situation? How would you have handled it if you were the boss?
Q2. Was B correct in his approach? What approach would you have taken if you were B?
Q3. What suggestions and approaches do you have for this company and its management?

Dear Nehakriti,

The replies to your questions are as follows:

Q1. Do you think the boss is wrong in handling the situation? If you were the boss, how would you have handled it?

Reply: Yes, the boss is wrong in handling the situation. He has violated the principle of equality. The rules of punctuality should be equal for all. There cannot be a trade-off between good performance and punctuality. Secondly, if employee B was not so efficient, what efforts did the manager take to improve performance?

Q2. Was B correct in his approach? If you were B, what approach would you have taken?

Reply: Employee B could have been a little more moderate. He could have submitted an application and then raised the grievance later. Otherwise, he may not have retaliated immediately. Before submitting an application, he could have raised the grievance and left the matter to the discretion of the senior management. His open defiance could weaken his case.

Q3. What suggestions and approaches do you have for this company and its management?

Reply: This could be a failure of the HR Department. If employee A had been consistently late, why was it not noticed by the HR professionals? If it was noticed, why was he not called to the HR department to explain? Why was the persistent lateness not reported to the competent authorities? Let's assume the HR department was inactive and official information was not relayed. However, the senior management was also passive. Why did no one check the attendance records? Why was the lateness not noticed by them? Why was the manager of the latecomer not questioned? The top management should be more aware. It seems this was not the case.

Final comments: Such situations are common in homes or offices. A child with good academic performance is often favored, while one with poor performance is neglected. In organizations, the misbehavior of star performers is sometimes overlooked, setting a wrong trend. Chris Argyris likened discipline to a hot stove - it burns anyone who touches it, without discrimination. We should apply the same principle in running an organization. Though implementing equality is challenging, that is what leadership entails!

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

I agree with Mr. Dinesh; rules of discipline should be the same for all. Efficiency is always relative, whereas discipline is absolute. Therefore, disciplining lapses should always be objective. It is quite natural for a usually punctual employee to react defensively when excessively criticized for an occasional mistake.

It is better to leave this situation as it is without escalating it further. Perhaps the boss's suppressed thoughts about employee B's inefficiency found an outlet through the particular instance of tardiness. However, this cannot be considered a proper approach. In any case, both the boss and employee B were driven by emotions rather than rationality in this incident, which could have been easily disregarded.

This looks like a textbook situation. Is it a caselet given for answering? For one instance of coming late by an hour, a half-day leave application is not generally sought; at best, only a mild reprimand is given. You can reply using the 'Hot Stove' Rule pointed out by Umakanthan Sir.

Dear member,

Cases of unequal treatment are not new. Instances like these happen everywhere. The example you have quoted is a minor case of inequality. Those with more exposure will confirm that worse kinds of discrimination have occurred and could happen again in the future.

However, two points were missed in my previous reply. Here are my supplementary comments to the previous post.

a) If a subordinate reports late for duties, the functional head can write to HR about the tardiness. However, in this case, the functional head is ordering the subordinate to submit a leave application for half a day. If the leave application is not submitted, the head threatens disciplinary action. Does this mean the power to penalize is also vested with the functional head or manager? If functional heads are empowered to take punitive actions, what is the role of the HR Department or top management? Punitive powers should always be with a third party expected to act neutrally. In this case, it seems the managers are acting as both police and judge!

b) The cause of unequal treatment could be the lack of promulgation of organizational values. Many MNCs do not just frame vision and mission statements but also explicitly declare the company's values. Each manager is expected to embody these values. If an action or decision contradicts them, any employee can raise the issue. In some MNCs, a whistleblower is nominated to address violations of values with top management. In organized companies, values are discussed during induction training. New employees are not just told the list of values but given examples of how managers have upheld them in the past. A value-based company administration fosters harmony and a sense of justice among staff members, laying the foundation for employee engagement.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

I have gone through all the comments. Firstly, in the question, it is presumed that there are only two employees, and a comparison is being made between these two employees. In a small company, there is no HR department. In a large organization, there is an electronic system for attendance, so the HR department automatically knows about the incoming and outgoing of any employee.

In the question, it is stated that one employee is efficient, and the other is not. As human beings, we are driven by emotions, so it is possible that the boss is favoring the efficient employee.

While everyone talks about equality, I agree that there should be equality, but at the same time, employees should also consider their performance. Everyone talks about their rights but often neglects their responsibilities.

Dear Anonymous,

I wish you had expressed your views without a cloak of anonymity. Anyway, my rejoinder to your views is as below.

Difference Between Small and Big Companies

In the first paragraph, you have written about the difference between small and big companies. However, the originator of the post has not written about the employee count. The rules of the company's administration do not differ; whether small or big, these remain the same.

Performance and Reporting

In the second paragraph, you have justified the boss giving leverage to one of the employees for being efficient. I have written in my first post that, come what may, there cannot be a trade-off between good performance and late reporting. In boss-driven smaller companies, the top boss may allow this mutation of a sound management practice; however, they will have to pay the price of instituting the practice of inequality.

The top-notch IT companies do not have strict reporting timings. However, each employee, whether super smart or a "dumb," has to log 8 or 9 hours of duty. Just because someone is too smart, concession in the number of hours is never given.

By the way, you may quote an example of any branded company wherein concession of late reporting is given to an employee for having excellent performance. The definition of excellence in performance is exceeding deliverables in spite of adhering to the service conditions that are common to all. Nothing great about just meeting the basic service conditions.

Subpar Performance and Recruitment

Now about the last paragraph. Come what may, there cannot be any justification for subpar performance. Nevertheless, two things emerge here. If the employee has poor performance, then it is a recruitment failure, at least partially, if not fully. Therefore, the buck again stops at the company and not with the employee. Secondly, if the subordinate has poor performance, then what efforts did the reporting manager take to improve the performance? Imposing strict conditions of punctuality is not a solution.

Rights and Responsibilities

Now coming to the rights and responsibilities. Both employees are responsible for maintaining punctuality and performance. An artificial balance was created by the reporting manager out of the imbalance between these two factors. However, no organization can grow on the foundation of artificiality. A condition of naturalness is fundamental.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

I would like to point out in this case that the issue is not about arriving late, but rather about someone else being late. Why is no action taken in such instances? By avoiding such questions, you may likely prevent this type of problem. If you are referring to being late for your scheduled hours, then you should discuss it with your supervisor.

Instances like this may occur frequently in life, but that doesn't mean you should always be disheartened.