Work Leadership Values and Disciplinary Measures: Inputs on Work Ethics

for Managers

By:

Nikki Rose C’zare A. Abalos

 2

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

It is said that the world we live in now is dependent on economies formed in

countries in the macro perspective. Later on, these economies grow on to build what is

now referred to as “global corporate mechanism” that relies heavily on the value of

human work.

Stripped down to its very core, the global corporate mechanism functions mainly

because metropolitan people, engineered in schools and hardwired to digest voluminous

amounts of work of various sorts in various fields. If one is to dissect the framework on

which global economies depend on, it will come to attention that all hard work is done by

human resources—the vast collection of humans who gather together for the sole purpose

of working as a unit to benefit the company and contribute to its success (Bennet, 2012).

In the ideal workplace, all humans work together without suffering from major

personal and interpersonal setbacks. But as Aristotle has correctly pointed out, once two

or more individuals band together, conflicts are bound to arise regardless of purpose or

motive. To work with another means to be open to conflict. Add to this the innate human

tendency of supremacy and the personal drive to be calling the shots on how things

should be done in the corporate setting.

This tendency for conflict has paved the way for the adoption of the hierarchy

system where people in the workplace are sorted through qualifications, salary grades,

positions and entitlements (Kaplin, 2007). The amount of benefits and leverage one gets
 3

in the workplace gets better as one goes up the corporate ladder either thru direct hiring

or promotion.

The peculiar thing about the hierarchy system is the little room it allows for

people to do away with the ranking of employees. In this system, any deviant behaviour

which normally is expressed thru offensive actions by people in the lower echelon of

positions show to the people who are in the higher stages of the hierarchy. This is what is

legally termed as “insubordination” (De Merwe, 2013).

According to Ringrose (2006), down to its basic respect, insubordination

highlights any untoward actions, either via act or omission, showed by a person to his

superior to whom the former is legally expected to show obedience, faithfulness and

respect.

In capsule, insubordination has no room in the hierarchy system and as observed

in actual practice, superiors who believe they have been wronged by their employees thru

insubordination have the urge, if not the obligation, to respond to these threats thru

disciplinary measures (Imber, 2011).

On the point of view of the employees, once asked with "If your employer was to

ask you to do a task, would you obey?", majority of employees would respond that they

would obey. The majority of employees would see themselves as owing their employer

an obligation to obey their instructions. The employer is usually the one who gives

instructions and sets out what the employee is to do during working hours. For

performing the instructions the employee is remunerated.

 4

This symbiotic relationship is not only based on ideal concepts like obedience and

loyalty but by fear of loss and punishment. The current study contends that the essence or

nature of the employment relationship, which indicates the unique role of each party in

the contract of employment, is that the employee, by contracting away his or her

productive capacity, assumes a subordinate role in the relationship. It is this position of

"subordination", or more specifically its breach, insubordination, that is the topic of

investigation.

The aim of the study is to locate and define the nature of "subordination" in the

employment relationship, and then to investigate how the breaching of this "position"

would justify dismissal, as interpreted and applied by the courts and actual practice. This

is to indicate indirectly the restrictions placed on the "legal right" of the employer to

ensure that the employee does not breach the "position" of subordination. What has been

deemed a fair reason to dismiss for insubordination is set out and this in turn will clarify

both the employer and employee's duties toward each other.

The reader is firstly introduced to "contract" and to the contract of employment. It

is then highlighted that contract is the source of the employment relationship. The

contract of service is set out historically to introduce the reader to the nature of the

relationship. Definitions of the employment relationship are then offered and it is through

this that the reader is introduced to the employee's obligation to be subordinate. It is from

this foundation that the thesis turns to the location of the nature or essence of the

employment relationship - which it will be shown is "subordination". This will primarily

be achieved by an analysis of the three common law tests - Control, Organisation and the
 5

Dominant Impression - which have been used in both locating and distinguishing the

contract of employment from other relationships (Schmidt, 2011).

In discussing the common law tests it will be shown that the tests are merely tests

which tend to focus on indicators that represent the essence or nature of the relationship.

The nature or essence of the employment relationship win can be argued to be

"subordination", the breach of which would be insubordination. This will include, though

not exclusively, disobedience and disrespect directed towards the employer. Any conduct

that breaches the employer's right to demand that the employee act according to the

position of subordination is insubordination (Imber, 2011).

The consolidation and digesting of all these information will be used to come up

with means on how to critique the disciplinary approaches superiors use on the face of

insubordination and how effective policies towards addressing insubordination may be

effectively devised.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the disciplinary approach of managers toward

insubordination for the basis for work ethics improvement.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 Age;

1.2 Gender;

1.3 Civil status;

1.4 Highest educational attainment;

 6

1.5 Length of service;

1.6 Employment Status;

1.7 Length of Practice;

1.8 Position held; and

1.9 Monthly Income?

2. What is the level of work leadership values among respondents in terms of:

2.1 Terminal values (end-goals that the respondents try to achieve);

and

2.2 Instrumental values (means by which an end-goal is

accomplished)?

3. What is the assessment of the respondents regarding the disciplinary measures

they impose on their employees relative to the following aspects:

3.1 Affection for the job (Affective);

3.2 Fear of loss (Continuance); and

3.3 Sense of Obligation (Normative)?

4. Is there a significant difference on the level of work values and the disciplinary

measures of the respondents when grouped according to their profile?

5. Is there a significant relationship on the level of work values and the disciplinary

measures of the respondents?

6. What disciplinary measures may be proposed to effectively and ethically address

insubordination in the workplace?

 7

Scope, Delimitations and Limitations of the Study

This study will be conducted at various workplaces across Batangas City during

the school year 2017-2018. Particularly, it will investigate the profiles of the respondents

in connection to their level of work values, particularly terminal and instrumental values

and their disciplinary measures in terms of affective, continuance and normative aspects.

The descriptive research design will be utilized, with 250 superiors as respondents

with questionnaire as the main data gathering instrument.

This study will be delimited to superiors in a workplace that has at least 100

employees in the organizational framework. Workplaces functioning under mandate of

sole proprietorship, general or limited partnerships will not be covered by the study as

they have different framework for human resources management.

Its limitation lies on the fact that the work values and disciplinary measures of the

respondents will be based on purely personal factors like profiles and other biases like

experiences and level of knowledge which strongly differ from one person to another

which is why the results of the respondents may not aptly speak for other superiors from

previous years, from different institutions or even other professionals engaged in another

corporate setting.

Significance of the Study

This study intended to shed light that would be beneficial to the following:

To Administrators, particularly those in charge of regulating the workplace will

have the information on the quality of the present corporate setting through this research.

This shall help the administrators assess the strength of its workforce, evaluate their
 8

weaknesses, objectify incentives and overall improve the conduct of work to effectively

manage insubordination.

To employees, since they are the beneficiaries of the study, can facilitate the drive

towards developing the optimal levels of performance coupled with respect and loyalty

and renewed sense of purpose which in the long run can help the institution produce

better employee performances.

To Policy Makers, the result of the study will provide the policy makers an

authentic foundation of the emerging challenge of inspiring a rising standard of work

values needed not only in the applicable in the workplace but living life as a whole

through the adoption of programs that target interpersonal development amongst people.

To readers and future researchers, this will surely serve as a source of reference

for other related studies to be conducted by future researchers. Specifically, future

researchers could investigate how the work values exhibited by employers can be used as

a basis for formulating corporate programs in the ethical manner.

Hypothesis

The study shall test the following hypothesis

1. There is no significant difference on the level of work values and the disciplinary

measures of the respondents when grouped according to their profile.

2. There is no significant relationship on the level of work values and the

disciplinary measures of the respondents.

 9

Bibliography

Bennet, C (2012) "A Guide to the Law of Unfair Dismissal in South Africa" Lexicon
Publishers.

Imber, Michael and Tyll Van Geel (2011). “A Teacher's Guide to Education Law”.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. p. 196. Google Book Search.

Kaplin, William A. and Barbar A. Lee (2007). “The Law of Higher Education”. Jossey-
Baass. p. 234. Google Book Search.

Ringrose, HG (2006) "The Law and Practice of Employment" Juta and Co.

Schmidt, Jeff (2011). “Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and
the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives”. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc. p. 41. . Google Book Search.

der Merwe, Van (2013), Van Huyssteen, Reinecke, Lubbe, and Lotz "Contract: General
Principles" Juta and Co.