Effective Employee Discipline: A Case of the Internal Revenue Service.

The role of employee discipline from a management, employee, and union perspective is examined using the Internal Revenue Service as a case study example. The concept of discipline is defined and contrasted with punishment. Also, two discipline models -- progressive discipline and positive discipline

-- are compared and contrasted. A hybrid discipline model used at the Internal Revenue Service is discussed; the roles and responsibilities of management, the union, and the employee in the discipline process are included also. In particular, the roles of IRS managers and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) are outlined. Results from the recently released IRS/NTEU National Equal Employment Opportunity Task Force Report are highlighted. Several discipline pitfalls are outlined including: cultural diversity issues, tolerance of poor performers, and lack of managerial training. To make the disciplinary process fairer and less stressful for managers and all employees, recommendations from the IRS/NTEU report are presented.

Discipline is an inevitable part of a manager's responsibilities. W. Edwards Deming, the founder of quality management, in Out of the Crisis, wrote that, "People can face almost any problem except the problems of people.... Faced with problems with people, management...will go into a state of paralysis."[1] "Coping with disciplinary problems is one of the most difficult and stressful, yet essential parts of any supervisor's job."[2] The discipline process involves more than just managerial instinct or intuition to resolve workplace performance problems. Most organizations have objectives or union agreements in place to protect employees' rights from arbitrary dismissal and lack of feedback. Managers must provide fair, factual, and timely disciplinary feedback. These authors examine the disciplinary procedures used by a federal government agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and its union, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). The results of the 1994 IRS/NTEU Equal Opportunity Task Force Report that focuses on the higher discipline rates for minorities with the IRS are discussed, and recommendations from the study and literature are given.

Discipline Defined

Although the term "discipline" may seem clear, Paul J. Champagne and R. Bruce McAfee provide the first specific definition for discipline in their book, Motivating Strategies for Performance and Productivity.[3] Often viewed synonymously with punishment, discipline is contrasted to punishment by these authors. Punishment is defined as an "undesirable event that follows an instance of unacceptable behavior and is intended to decrease the frequency of that behavior."[4] Discipline has three distinct meanings:

* punishment for a violation of a work rule or direct order;

* training that molds and strengthens the employee's behavior;

* and "control gained by enforced obedience."[5]

From these three definitions, one can see that discipline not only has a corrective component but also an educational one.

According to the Internal Revenue Service Manual, discipline is defined as an "oral admonishment confirmed in writing, a written reprimand, or a suspension of 14 calendar days or less."[6] Adverse action is defined as "a removal; a suspension for more than 14 calendar days; a reduction in grade; a reduction in pay; and a furlough of 30 calendar days or less of a full-time employee."[7] Clearly this definition focuses more on the enforcement or punishment side of discipline.

Discipline Models

Two discipline models -- progressive discipline or positive discipline -- are followed by most large organizations. Developed in the 1930s, progressive discipline follows a four-step progression: an oral warning, a written warning, suspension, and dismissal. The second model -- positive discipline -- is a participatory approach that can be used to encourage the employee to recognize his or her deficiencies and recommit to the goals and mission of the organization. Positive discipline places the responsibility of change upon the employee, thus serving as an employee incentive to improve job performance.

The two most commonly used disciplinary models, progressive discipline and positive discipline, share three common elements. They include:(1) coaching; (2) communicating; and (3) decision- making processes.

Progressive Discipline

The progressive discipline model was developed in the 1930s in response to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. The NLRA required that discipline and discharge be based on "just cause." This model follows four progressive steps to address identical offenses committed by an employee. First, an oral warning is issued as an informal reprimand. This is to fulfill corrective-training purposes. Recommendations are that managers keep notes of what transpired during this initial meeting. The second step, a written warning, is more serious and official. It summarizes the previous oral attempts. The written feedback is discussed with the employee and then placed in the employee's personnel binder.[8]

The third step is suspension. The purpose of this layoff without pay is to impress on the employee the seriousness of the offense and the necessity of change. The final step is termination. Unlike the previous steps, termination is not a corrective measure. Dismissal is used only when the previous three steps have failed to help the employee change or the offense is of a highly serious nature.[9]

Disadvantages to the Progressive Discipline Model

This traditional discipline model has six disadvantages:[10]

1. Management may feel as if they are obligated to address every performance flaw and assign an appropriate punishment to meet the offense.

2. Management may focus solely on the problem employees at the expense of the good performers in the group. Monitoring and disciplining problem employees may consume too much of a manager's time, not allowing the opportunity to focus on other duties.

3. Progressive discipline focuses on employees' past mistakes. No emphasis is placed on helping the employee to recommit to proper performance.

4. Progressive discipline may encourage adversarial relations between a manager and an employee.

5 The traditional discipline system may treat the employee as a child rather than as an adult who must take the initiative and responsibility to improve his or her performance.

6. Progressive discipline may create managerial resistance to perform the disciplinarian role. In turn, managers may tolerate poor performance rather than assume an adversarial role, thus complicating the discipline process.

Advantages of the Progressive Discipline Model

This model has two advantages for managers:

1. Progressive discipline impresses upon the employee the seriousness of repeated violations.

2. Progressive discipline allows the employee additional opportunities to correct his or her performance prior to being terminated.

Positive Discipline

Osigweh and Hutchison studied the effects of a positive discipline program that was implemented at Union Carbide in 1977. Positive discipline was implemented on a trial basis at a non-unionized plant in Brownsville, Texas. The program was so successful that today all new Union Carbide plants use the positive discipline model. The positive discipline approach includes participation in that "each employee has the right to correct problems that arise in the workplace and be allowed the time required to return to fully acceptable performance."[11] Each step in the system recognizes this employee right. The first step of positive discipline is the oral reminder that requires the supervisor to discuss the problem with the employee informally, and remind the employee of the obligation to meet performance standards. Rather than threatening the employee with harsher penalties if the problem continues, the supervisor focuses on getting the employee's agreement to improve performance.

No handwritten memos or notes should be placed in the employee's personnel binder at this level. This should serve as an incentive for the employee to improve performance. If the performance problem persists, the next step is a written reminder. Another meeting can be held with the employee. A written memo of the meeting is prepared, and a copy is placed in the employee's personnel binder.

When the first two steps fail, the final step of positive discipline is placing the employee on a paid disciplinary suspension for one day. The purpose of this day off is to give the employee time to reflect on whether to make a total performance turnaround or resign and look for another job. When the employee returns to the office the following day, the employee informs the manager of his or her decision.

Provided that the employee decides to remain, the manager and employee jointly identify the changes that must be made in order for the employee's work habits and behavior to meet acceptable levels. The mutual agreement is documented and placed in the employee's personnel binder. Provided no further performance problems arise requiring disciplinary action, the employee is retained.

Contrasting Models

One of the primary reasons that managers fail to discipline employees is because they are uncomfortable with the traditional punitive method of discipline.[12] The employee is never addressed, and the performance problems persist. The most significant advantage of the positive discipline model is that managers are more willing to address performance problems early, rather than to delay and allow the problem to become so serious that correction is improbable.[13]

Positive discipline reduces the probability of wrongful discharge claims and union-organizing drives due to the role of counseling and a paid decision day. Also, the goal of positive discipline is not to intimidate problem employees into compliance by using coercive power, "but rather to develop and keep responsible employees through corrective counseling."[14]

Implementing positive discipline requires that the supervisor and employee work together to correct the problem behavior. Also, the direction of communication between the two models is different. The traditional model of discipline uses a vertical parent-child method of communication. Positive discipline, however, entails communication at a horizontal level. "Positive discipline treats employees as adults or peers in a "participative, problem-solving, rather than punitive manner."[15]

Also, the two models differ in focus. Traditional discipline models focus on prior events. The only mention of the future is the warning from the supervisor that future performance must be acceptable, or the employee will be in danger of dismissal. In contrast, positive discipline focuses on creating a responsible employee through continuous improvement. The most significant difference between the traditional discipline model and positive discipline is in the final step. With the traditional model of discipline, the final step is an unpaid suspension. In contrast, the last step in the positive discipline model is a paid decision day in order for the employee to decide whether he or she can make the necessary changes and recommit to the organization. Positive discipline recognizes that the employee is the one who must make the choice "to become either a committed employee or an ex-employee."[16] Employees who believe they have the power to make the changes themselves will be motivated to do so.

Management-Employee-Union Responsibilities In the Discipline Process

Management, employees, and the union all have responsibilities in the discipline process that are designed to prevent increased concerted activity. The responsibilities of all three parties in general and within the IRS are discussed. These responsibilities strive to maintain performance and avoid disciplinary problems.

Management Responsibilities to the Discipline Process

Managers today must take an extra step to rejuvenate the problem employee. This extra step may prevent charges of wrongful discharge or employment discrimination. Also, for a company to salvage a problem employee rather than to terminate the person and train a new replacement may be wise economically. Managers are responsible for the "motivation, performance and conduct of each employee assigned to them."[17] A manager must create a positive work environment where productivity will be enhanced.[18] Every manager must ensure that employees are aware of, and understand, the position description under which they work. Being unaware of the work rules may serve as grounds for an employee to file for wrongful discharge. IRM 4(10)[20] states that managers are obligated to: identify the strengths and weaknesses of each employee, evaluate employees fairly and objectively on a regular basis, identify causes of performance problems, and initiate actions to eliminate any weaknesses.[19] Successful managers insist on quality performance from every employee. A final responsibility requirement for managers is to administer discipline or adverse action in a timely manner.[20]

Employee Responsibilities to the Discipline Process

Employee responsibilities are generally found in a company's handbook, rules of conduct, or in employee job descriptions. Employees have the responsibility to perform according to the organization's rules of conduct and at an acceptable level of job performance. The guidebook, IRS Rules of Conduct,[21] is issued and discussed with every new employee. All employees must sign a form acknowledging that they have received a copy of the rules and have familiarized themselves with its contents. According to the IRS Rules of Conduct, employees have a responsibility to perform their duties in a conscientious manner, follow the direction of the manager, and conduct their "relations with fellow employees in a manner which does not cause dissension or discord."[22] Violations of the Rules of Conduct are considered serious and can result in strong disciplinary action, including dismissal.

The Responsibilities of the Union

The third party in the discipline process is the union. The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) represents all bargaining unit employees of the Internal Revenue Service. The national agreement between IRS management and NTEU is known as the National Treasury Employees Union Agreement. The National Office, Regional, and District labor agreement will hereafter be referred to as NORD V.

According to NORD V, managers are to administer discipline only when it will "promote the efficiency of the Service."[23] Arbitrators review the disciplinary proceedings to see whether management considered all mitigating circumstances prior to applying discipline. If due process and mitigating circumstances are not considered, arbitrators will tend to reduce any disciplinary penalties under one of these two conditions. First, did management contribute to the employee's problem through misguidance or harassment? Secondly, are the circumstances of the case so unusual that the behavior is unlikely to occur again?[24] Mitigating circumstances that arbitrators consider include: the employee's past work record and length of service; job performance, ability to get along with co-workers, and dependability; the nature and seriousness of the offense; the impact of the offense upon the organization; the clarity of the work rules that were violated; and whether unusual circumstances such as job tensions or harassment provoked the situation.[25] Also, NORD V requires that management give the disciplined employee 15 calendar days advance written notice before suspension. The employee then has seven days to make an oral or written reply. IRS management issues a final decision by the 15th day.[26]

The employee has the right to request union representation during any disciplinary meeting or investigation, when he or she believes that the meeting will result in disciplinary action. This employee right is based on the Supreme Court decision in the Weingarten case. Also, an IRS employee is entitled to unsanitized "copies of all admonishments, written reprimands, and proposal and decision letters for suspensions of fourteen days or less."[27] The role of unions is to ensure that disciplinary actions, including suspension and removal, are based on just cause and receive uniform penalties.

The Discipline Process within the Internal Revenue Service

The disciplinary model used within the Internal Revenue Service is a hybrid model consisting of progressive discipline that adheres to the Rules of Conduct and union guidelines and positive discipline. Employee rights are preserved through a progressive disciplinary process and an optional grievance process in which an employee can appeal managerial decisions. Managers have the broad responsibilities to not only motivate their employees to peak performance, but also discipline all employees fairly, impartially, and in a timely manner. The discipline process is one that is a continual challenge.

The discipline process is challenging due to the number of pitfalls that managers face, including: cultural differences, perpetual problem employees, lack of managerial training, and defense mechanisms.

The IRS/NTEU EEO Task Report

In 1991, the Internal Revenue Service and the National Treasury Employees Union EEO Task Force reviewed the high level of disciplinary actions among minority groups within the IRS. The 1991 report found that African-American employees are disciplined at a rate three times that of white employees based on their workforce percentages. Minorities compose 32.5 percent of the IRS workforce compared with 67.5 percent Caucasians. However, minority employees received 50 percent of all disciplinary actions during fiscal year 1989, while Caucasian employees received only 41 percent.[28] Table 1 shows that the IRS is more racially diverse than the government as a whole and appears to promote affirmative action in recruitment.

NTEU interprets the disparity in the discipline percentages as due to racial discrimination. IRS management interprets the results as due to having more African-Americans concentrated in lower-paying jobs, inadequate managerial skills, and an inadequate recruiting program. IRS management states that racial discrimination is not a valid reason for the disparity. Suggestions by IRS management to improve the statistics include improving employee recruiting procedures and increased managerial training in such areas as diversity management. Suggestions made by union officials include improved employee training and increased opportunities for African-American employees.

A 1994 follow-up review of the 1991 discipline study shows that disciplinary actions occurred at approximately three times the rate for African-American and Hispanic employees than for Caucasian employees. This disparate pattern is found in the IRS regions and at IRS Service Centers. The uneven rate of discipline is identified at all wage levels, except at the GS-8 level or above the GS-11 level. The distribution between the various ethnic groups by the type of charge for discipline is shown in Table 2 (previous page). Three major areas of disciplinary actions -- absence and leave problems, unacceptable performance, and individual tax violations -- are identified in this table.

A U.S. Office of Personnel Management report shows that an average of 6,410 disciplinary actions was taken against 1,459,098 federal employees -- or 44 percent. In contrast, the IRS took 660 disciplinary actions against 132,249 employees -- or .50 percent of the employees.[29] Apparently, the IRS disciplines more employees on average than the federal government as a whole. Due to the high degree of public trust that is required for the function of the IRS, any employee misconduct must be addressed quickly. Furthermore, the IRS is not alone with this discipline issue. Other government agencies such as the U.S. Postal Service, have similar patterns of disparate discipline within their organizations

Approximately 70 percent of the disciplinary penalties during fiscal year 1991 were without monetary loss.[30] The majority of the actions taken were an oral admonishment or a written reprimand. The distribution between less severe and more severe actions based on race was found to be about equal. These statistics are illustrated in Table 3 and Table 4.

The Importance of Monitoring Disciplinary Practices

The IRS case study illustrates the importance of selecting the correct disciplinary model and then monitoring results after implementation. The IRS/NTEU National EEO Task Force Report found that the current discipline system affects minority employees more than white employees. Furthermore, the survey illustrates that the disparity occurs throughout the organization and at most grade levels. When the discipline process is abused, it can create diversity and ethics problems, impact recruitment negatively, and increase employee turnover.

When properly administered, discipline can be a motivational tool just as effective as awards. Whenever managers have the opportunity, rewards can be used to recognize and encourage good work habits. "The danger of discipline lies in its overuse."[31] If managers attempt to reinforce good behavior through punishment, when the punishment is removed, the employee will likely continue the old behavior.

Discipline should never be used as a leverage to force an employee to act unethically or work outside his or her job description. To do so constitutes coercive power and violates all codes of ethics. When discipline is abused by management, it quickly leads to resentment, lost trust and respect from subordinates, and poor relations between management and labor. Managers who address small violations will lose the respect and trust of their employees. In summary, "The goal of discipline is not to win battles but to create responsible employees."[32]

Toleration of Poor Performers

The second pitfall found in most organizations, including the IRS, is the toleration of poor performers. One of the advantages of positive discipline is that managers are more willing to address problem employees. Under the traditional disciplinary model, managers may avoid the adversarial role. In a Wyatt Company survey of approximately 3,500 employees, almost 50 percent of the employees stated that management was "too soft" on employee performance. This survey included a wide range of geographic areas, industries, and job levels. Thirty percent of the survey participants stated that their managers do not know how to adequately solve people problems at work. Also, the same percentage of the employees thought that supervisors failed to give regular performance feedback.[33]

Like most federal agencies, the IRS must follow the Office of Personnel Management and Federal Personnel Manual guidelines when addressing perpetual problem employees. The termination process can be lengthy, averaging about one year. In the short-run, it may be easier for managers to avoid confronting a problem employee. This may be due to the manager's need for affiliation with his or her subordinates or a lack of upper-management support to address the problem employee. Yet, when the problem performance is allowed to continue, managers risk losing credibility and authority with subordinates. This quickly leads to poor morale, reduced motivation, and lack of trust towards management, provided the problem employee is not disciplined. "The long-term effects of ignoring poor performance can be much more devastating than the manager's short-term discomfort about confronting it."[34]

At a time when U.S. organizations must compete to excel in a global market, managers should encourage each employee to perform to the best of his or her abilities. The result should be higher morale and motivation among all employees. The tolerance of a small number of poor performers can have an extremely damaging impact on an organization. A commitment to the company as a whole should be emphasized, as every successful organization depends on each employee's efforts.

Lack of Managerial Training

The third pitfall that negatively affects the discipline process is the lack of managerial training. The purpose of training is to familiarize the managers with new policies and procedures, and to strengthen their skills regarding performance problems.[35] The state of training in the federal government as a whole was evaluated by the Volcker Commission.[36] The commission found that:

   Federal training is suffering from an identity crisis. Agencies are not
   sure what they should train for (short-term or long-term), who should get
   the lion's share of resources (entry-level or senior-level), when employees
   need additional education (once a year or more often), and whether
   mid-career education is of value. Career paths are poorly designed,
   executive succession is accidental and unplanned, and real-time training
   for pressured managers is virtually nonexistent. At both the career and
   presidential level, training is all too often ad hoc and
   self-initiated.[37]

Lack of training can lead to "poorly documented and conducted disciplinary discussions with employees" and can cause management to lose discipline cases during arbitration and litigation.[38] Currently, no classes are offered for first-line IRS managers in the areas of disciplinary practices and documentation. However, managers do receive basic management training and training on the NORD union contract.

Using an example within the IRS, an employee abused on-the-job time repeatedly through tardiness, extended breaks, and long lunches. The manager communicated with the employee in writing, following an oral warning. The manager, however, failed to specifically document the dates and times of events that resulted in the memorandum. Consequently, the employee denied any wrongdoing and asked for a written retraction from the manager. In this instance, the manager may have to establish new documentation before this particular employee can be disciplined. Instances such as these can be avoided, when managers are trained in disciplinary practices and documentation.

Positive Changes at the Internal Revenue Service

Two basic themes are found in the IRS/NTEU National EEO Task Force Report. The first theme is that the organization must do a better job of "informing, educating and assisting employees in understanding their responsibilities."[39] The second theme is to improve the interpersonal and communication skills of managers. The common goal of both of these themes is to maximize the potential for employee success in the organization. Four areas of recommendations are offered in the disciplinary process within the IRS.

Enhancing Management Skills and Accountability

The first category of recommendations strives to produce cultural change within IRS. Management training programs should be revised to focus on interpersonal skills, communication, and cultural diversity. These authors recommend that each new manager receives training in labor relations, disciplinary counseling, and documentation training. Mock disciplinary interviews should be incorporated as part of the training. Training should be mandatory within 30 days after a manager assumes the position, with additional training planned on a regular basis to update managers on new disciplinary practices and labor laws. The district's labor relations specialist should meet with new managers and explain the labor specialist's role and how they can assist when disciplinary situations arise. New managers should be selected based upon their support of diversity goals.

Another way to enhance management skills and accountability is through statistically measuring, "on an annual basis, the impact of the discipline system on minorities from a Service-wide perspective."[40] The results will be made available to all managers and NTEU officials. A systems approach for providing consistency in disciplinary actions is recommended. Local geographic areas that are disciplining at a disproportionate rate would be subject to additional statistical analyses and review.

Training and Education of Employees

To achieve the goal of enhancing employee understanding of the work rules, the IRS has revised its new employee orientation materials. New employees will be oriented immediately upon reporting for duty and then again 90 days after employment. Interest in mentoring, coaching and empowering employees has increased in many districts, including the St. Louis and the Nashville Districts. The IRS will place continued emphasis on ethics and integrity through workshops, so that fewer employees will require discipline. Managers are encouraged to use group meetings to discuss the rules of conduct and other issues before they become disciplinary problems.

Recruiting

The data gathered from national studies and statistics from recruitment and attrition will be used to monitor progress and better manage IRS employees. The task force recommended revising the Standard Form 171, application for employment, so that it is consistent with other application forms. Another recruitment recommendation is that the pre-employment screening process be expedited. This would include the purchase of fingerprint technology for regions that hire large numbers of employees. The goal is to screen out potential problem employees prior to employment.

Improving Communication

Communication is a major variable in the disciplinary process. One recommendation from the IRS/NTEU report is the use of focus group interviews to understand employees' needs at local offices. Many districts have implemented focus group meetings in local offices in order to learn the issues affecting front-line employees and promote open communications.

Examples of Positive Discipline

Districts throughout the IRS are using creative initiatives to find positive solutions to discipline. Six examples are provided. In the Boston District, a labor relations specialist discussed the most commonly violated rules via video. The Oklahoma City District prepared a Rules of Conduct lesson plan for group managers to follow "to ensure consistency in messages given to employees."[41] In order to keep managers informed of a potential leave problem, the Nashville District issued an all-managers statement explaining the difference between Absent Without Leave and Leave Without Pay. Several districts have implemented methods of notifying employees, through charts, pamphlets and videos, about security violations, criminal activities, and disciplinary actions taken. Managers in many districts are attending sensitivity training either as new managers or at all-managers' meetings. The Ft. Lauderdale District developed a course called, "Working Together in a Multi-Cultural Environment," to increase diversity awareness among managers.[42]

From these examples, apparently the IRS is working actively with the National Treasury Employees Union to address the problem of disparate discipline. This is beneficial for management, the union and employees, because the mission of the IRS relies on the integrity of its workforce.

Guidelines for Fair and Effective Discipline

Guidelines for effective discipline that all managers should follow in order to make the discipline process more fair and less challenging are abundant and popular.[43] These rules are known as the "hot stove" rules, and generally, the IRS follows these guidelines. However, managers must focus on steps 10 and 12 -- consistency in discipline. In order for discipline to be effective, all employees must follow, and be disciplined by, the same set of work rules -- regardless of their positions, races, or seniority.

1. Understand your authority as a manager. A manager should never exceed his or her authority to make decisions.

2. Prepare to explain the company rule or union policy used to discipline the employee. This may include explaining the company's rules of conduct.

3. Refrain from making downgrading remarks about the work rules.

4. Communicate standards clearly. Managers must follow the same rules that they expect their employees to follow.

5. Observe the violation. Discipline cannot be based on hearsay.

6 Collect documentation before addressing the employee.

7 Emphasize discipline for a behavioral act. Show the employee respect and always leave the employee with his or her self-respect.

8. Determine appropriate disciplinary action. Do not over-discipline nor be too lenient.

9. Strive to maintain favorable work relations after the discipline process is over. Neither party should hold grudges or ill feelings. Rather, the manager should convey a sense of confidence in the employee that the necessary performance changes are attainable.

10. Enforce the work rules consistently with all employees. Employees must be informed of the rules and the penalties for breaking them.

11. Discipline should be timely. Delaying discipline, like delaying feedback, reduces effectiveness.

12. Focus on the act, not on the employee involved.

Conclusions

The concepts of employee discipline and punishment are defined, and two different discipline models -- progressive discipline and positive discipline -- are examined. The majority of organizations follow progressive discipline, positive discipline, or a hybrid of the two, when disciplining employees. Research shows that both models have advantages and disadvantages, yet regardless of which model is used, discipline must be viewed as a corrective-training tool. Research shows that positive discipline is effective for management and fair for the problem employee.

Many of the problems that managers experience during the discipline process can be reduced through proper training, establishing clear and effective work rules, following guidelines and procedures consistently, and documenting disciplinary actions. Several recommendations are made to improve the disciplinary process at the IRS. These recommendations are designed to support the overriding goal of the IRS/NTEU National Task Force Report -- to maximize the potential for employee success.

The IRS is a federal agency that is dependent on public trust to accomplish its mission. Therefore, employee discipline must be applied timely, fairly, and consistently among all employees. Management should use the positive discipline model whenever possible to avoid falling into the "soft boss" syndrome. Upper management should conduct periodic reviews of line managers to ensure that they are addressing all discipline problems within their group in a consistent manner. The positive changes being made at the IRS illustrate the commitment to implementing the recommendations made by the national task force.

Recommendations for other organizations based on this case study include: choosing a discipline model based on positive discipline, analyzing the impact on all minority groups and employee levels after implementation, improving employee orientation, and training managers adequately. Employee discipline is a multi-faceted function that involves a serious commitment by management, the union, and employees to uphold the work rules.

Notes

[1] Weiss, D., "How to Deal with Unpleasant People Problems," Supervisory Management, 37 (1992): 1-2.

[2] Osigweh, C. and W. Hutchinson, "Positive Discipline," Human Resource Management, 28(1991): 367-383.

[3] Day, Dave, 1993, "Help for Discipline Dodgers," Training and Development, vol. 47 (May), pp. 19-21.

[4] Day, Dave, 1993, p. 21.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Internal Revenue Service, 1992, Internal Revenue Service Manual, 4(10) 20, p. 192.

[7] Internal Revenue Service, 1998, NORD V (Document 6647), Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 81.

[8] Holley, William H. and Kenneth M. Jennings, 1991, The Labor Relations Process, (4th ed.), Chicago: The Dryden Press, pp. 308-309.

[9] Pulich, M., "Disciplining Late Arrivals and Long Lunchers," Supervisory Management, 36(1991): 3.

[10] Osigweh, C. and W. Hutchinson.

[11] Ibid, p. 371.

[12] Segal, J., "Did the Marquis de Sade Design Your Discipline Program?" HR Magazine, 35(1990); 90-95.

[13] Osigweh, C. and W. Hutchinson.

[14] Segal, J., p. 90.

[15] Osigweh, C. and W. Hutchinson, p. 380.

[16] Ibid, p. 377.

[17] Internal Revenue Service, 1992, Internal Revenue Service Manual 4(10) 20, p. 192.

[18] Ritz. D., "Company Should Not Love Misery," Security Management, 37(1993): 31.

[19] Internal Revenue Service, 1992, Internal Revenue Service Manual 4(10) 20, p. 192.

[20] Internal Revenue Service, 1998, NORD V (Document 6647), Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 77.

[21] Internal Revenue Service, 1989, Rules of Conduct, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 5.

[22] Ibid, p. 5.

[23] Internal Revenue Service, 1998, NORD V (Document 6647), Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 77.

[24] Holley, William H. and Kenneth M. Jennings, 1991, The Labor Relations Process, (4th ed.). Chicago: The Dryden Press, pp. 308-309.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Internal Revenue Service, 1998, NORD V (Document 6647), Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 79.

[27] Ibid, p. 80.

[28] Internal Revenue Service, 1994, IRS NTEU National EEO Task Force Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[29] Internal Revenue Service, 1994, IRS Managers' Communications Toolkit, Washington D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 5.

[30] Internal Revenue Service, 1994, IRS NTEU National EEO Task Force Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[31] Buhler, Patricia, 1993, "Administering Discipline in the Organization," Supervision, vol. 54 (Nov.), p. 19.

[32] Segal, J., p. 95.

[33] "Soft Bosses," Personnel 67(1990): 7-8.

[34] Day, Dave, 1993, "Help For Discipline Dodgers," Training and Development, vol. 47 (May), p. 19.

[35] Osigweh, C. and W. Hutchinson, 1991.

[36] Newman, C., "Good Government Needs Good People," The Bureaucrat, 20(1991): 10.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Levy, Martin, 1990, "Discipline for Professional Employees," Personnel Journal, vol. 69 (December), p. 28.

[39] Internal Revenue Service, 1994, IRS NTEU National EEO Task Force Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 34.

[40] Ibid, p. 37.

[41] Internal Revenue Service, 1994, IRS Managers' Communications Toolkit, Washington D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 5.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Lussier, R., "16 Guidelines for Effective Discipline," Supervisory Management, 35 (1990): p. 10.

Cynthia J. Guffey, MBA
NASA
Marshall Space Flight Center
3501 Royal Drive, Suite 3501
Madison, AL 35758

Cynthia J. Guffey holds her MBA in Organizational Management from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (1995). She is employed as a Budget Analyst with NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center. She has been published in several management journals, including the Labor Law Review, Quality Progress, and Management Review.

Dr. Marilyn M. Helms, DBA, CFPIM, CIRM
Sesquicentennial Endowed Chair in Business and Technology
Dalton State College
213 North College Drive
Dalton, GA 30720-3797

Dr. Marilyn M. Helms, is the Sesquicentennial Endowed Chair and Professor of Management at Dalton State College, where she is also the Director of the college's Center for Applied Business Studies. Her articles have appeared in numerous periodicals, including the International Journal of Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology, The TQM Magazine, and the Operations Management Review. Her current research interests include just-in-time implementation, manufacturing strategy, and supply chain management.

Table 1. Comparison of the IRS Minority Employee Population
to Government-Wide Minority Employee Population and
Civilian Labor Force (CLF). (Circa 1989-91)

                    IRS    Total Federal   CLF

Blacks              22.7       16.8         9.0
Hispanics            6.5        5.3        11.0
Asians               2.5        1.8         NA
Native Americans     0.8        1.8         NA
Total               32.5       25.7        23.0

Source: IRS/NTEU National EEO Task Force Report, 1994, P. 8
Table 2. Distribution Between Black, White, and Hispanic Employees of
the Various Charges and Reasons for Discipline

                           Black %   White %   Hispanic %   Total

Absence and leave            51        40          8          880
Missing statute bars         32        58          9           99
Insubordination              49        46          4          122
Unacceptable performance     20        76          3          800
Vehicle & propert abuse      40        56          3           90
Substance abuse              39        54          6           28
Security disc.               17        75          6           47
Off duty misconduct          35        58          7           60
Sex misconduct                6        89          0           18
Work disruption              45        48          7          105
False statement              52        42          4          153
Misuse of position           22        61         15           54
Indebtedness                 56        35          8          157
Personal taxes               48        42          7          866
Fraud/theft                  64        32          3           97
Falsification                45        48          5          323
Fighting                     31        50         13           32
Criminal misconduct          40        52          5           67
Taxpayer complaint           46        36          9           11
Suitability                  51        45          2           49
WGI denial (performance)     27        65          3           34
Unavailability for work      50        45          5          373
IRS security abuse           34        59          6          103
Miscellaneous                38        55          6          399
Average/Total                42        51          6         4957

Source: IRS/NTEU National EEO Task Force Report, 1994.
Table 3. The Number of Each Type of Disciplinary Action Imposed by the IRS

Type of Penalty                           Total

Oral Admonishment Confirmed in Writing      776
Written Reprimand                           784
Suspension of 14 Days or Less               308
Suspension of More than 14 Days              50
Demotions                                    45
Removals                                    257

Total                                     2,220

Source: For the Fiscal Year 1991 as reported in the
IRS/NTEU NATIONAL EEO Task Force Report, 1994.
Table 4. The Distribution Between Black and White IRS Employees of Less
and More Severe Disciplinary Actions

                        Black       White

Less Severe Actions   673 (46%)   759 (54%)
More Severe Actions   295 (47%)   311 (53%)

Source: For the Fiscal Year 1991 as reported in the IRS/NTEU National
EEO Task Force Report, 1994.