In our organization, following is the "grievence handling procedure" as per company policy:- Informal / direct Approach If one feels comfortable telling the person who is the cause of the grievance then he / she is encouraged to approach the person responsible to discuss the issue(one on one meeting).If it is resolved amiacably, it is the best, other wise speak with a Grievance Contact Officer or your direct supervisor/manager. If you do not feel comfortable approaching these people, you will be advised to approach your Supervisor first and if he / she is unable to resolve then Human Resource Manger, Group HR Manager is being involved . If it is still not resolved then HE will let you know the formal procedure after listenening to the grievance. HR will first call the other person & tries to amicably resolve the issue. In case it is still unresolved he/ she by providing you information on what steps are taken if a "formal complaint" is required with available options. Follow options provided by Grievance Contact Officer / HR Manager Maintan a record of discussions and review outcome after (normally 2-3 days). Making a formal Complaint Formal complaint procedure Complete the Formal Complaint Form and discuss / Interview the complainant and explain the possible outcomes of making a formal complaint. Interview the respondent (employee whom the complaint has been made against) to hear his / her explanation. Interview any witnesses and the Supervisor of the Respondent. Discuss the outcome of the interviews involving the respondent and witnesses with the Complainant If there was sufficient evidence to prove the complaint, decide on which disciplinary procedure is to be followed. Same way, if there's sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, close down the issue and the record is placed in the concerned confidential personnel files. Unresolved Complaints and Appeals If you feel that the grievance procedure has not been followed properly, or that the outcome is unacceptable to you, you may also appeal directly to the CEO Review the way the complaint was handled and examine the outcome. Was the complaint handled properly? Advise the complainant and no further action will be taken. If it is deemed that the outcome was inappropriate, arrange for the complaint to be looked at again by someone appointed by CEO. Maintain all the record & correspondances in the personal files.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Monday, March 1, 2010
Training Continuances process………………………………………
Training Continuances process………………………………………
Training Need Analysis
Training needs assessment is very necessary for the any organization.
Basic components of TNA are mention blow;
1. To set training Objectives
2. To develop, design and conduct the training programs.
3. To evaluate the effectiveness Training program.
Approaches of TNA
Organizational based approach
Individual based approach
Organizational based approach
This approach is based upon the principles that even the competent employees could improve and their strength should be built upon.
For Example:
Awareness of ethical practices that company wants to introduce.
Creating of awareness about the culture / values of the organization.
Standardization of a procedure which is applicable to all employees
Individual based approach
Where the Organizational based approach Training Needs of individual employee is identified and worked upon.
For Example:
Specific work instructions
Following method of TNA are applied:
By observations
Questionnaire
Performance Appraisal
New Technology
Employee Request
Customers’ Complaints / Suggestions
Objective of Trainings:
Training is learning process, in that it seeks a “change” in an individual that will improve the ability to perform on the job.
Objective of Trainings
Continuances Improvement of individuals
Designing Training Program:
After identifying the training needs, a training program is design to give the training to the employee(s) in the area where deficiencies have found.
There are two board categories of training Design methods.
1. On the Job Training
2. Off the Job Training
Training Need Analysis
Training needs assessment is very necessary for the any organization.
Basic components of TNA are mention blow;
1. To set training Objectives
2. To develop, design and conduct the training programs.
3. To evaluate the effectiveness Training program.
Approaches of TNA
Organizational based approach
Individual based approach
Organizational based approach
This approach is based upon the principles that even the competent employees could improve and their strength should be built upon.
For Example:
Awareness of ethical practices that company wants to introduce.
Creating of awareness about the culture / values of the organization.
Standardization of a procedure which is applicable to all employees
Individual based approach
Where the Organizational based approach Training Needs of individual employee is identified and worked upon.
For Example:
Specific work instructions
Following method of TNA are applied:
By observations
Questionnaire
Performance Appraisal
New Technology
Employee Request
Customers’ Complaints / Suggestions
Objective of Trainings:
Training is learning process, in that it seeks a “change” in an individual that will improve the ability to perform on the job.
Objective of Trainings
Continuances Improvement of individuals
Designing Training Program:
After identifying the training needs, a training program is design to give the training to the employee(s) in the area where deficiencies have found.
There are two board categories of training Design methods.
1. On the Job Training
2. Off the Job Training
Competencies for HRD Practitioners
There are five fundamental skill that need to be mastered by Human Resource Development (HRD) practitioners: (1) needs assessment, (2) program design, development, and evaluation (including individual evaluation), (3) marketing of HRD programs, (4) cost/benefit analysis, and (5) facilitation of learning.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
HRD practitioners must be proficient in designing and conducting needs assessments prior to designing and developing the learning programs and training activities. There are four reasons for this: (1) to identify specific problem areas in the organization; (2) to identify specific learning deficiencies to serve as the bases of programs and activities; (3) to determine the bases of future learner evaluations; and (4) to determine the costs and benefits of the programs and activities in order to get organizational support.
PROGRAM DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, AND EVALUATION
At the heart of all learning programs and training activities is their design, a blueprint from which to construct all learning in the organization. Without a properly designed program, learning will not be consistent, nor will desired results become evident. HRD practitioners wise enough to develop the competencies and skills they need will design and develop effective programs and activities and will be able to evaluate outcomes accurately.
MARKETING OF HRD PROGRAMS
Many HRD programs are severely reduced during financially difficult periods. Often they are eliminated altogether. HRD practitioners should therefore develop a clear understanding of and appreciation for marketing. By doing so they can improve the overall image of the program, the field, and its practitioners and help position HRD as a serious and vital component of the organization's strategic future.
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Cost-benefit analysis is often used as a means of justification or evidence of impact. It provides upper management with information they understand and moves the evaluation of HRD effectiveness from qualitative to quantitative.
FACILITATION OF LEARNING
HRD practitioners need to develop teaching skills and an ability to facilitate learning in a variety of settings. They must also understand how adults learn and know how to evaluate learning and behavioral change.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
HRD practitioners must be proficient in designing and conducting needs assessments prior to designing and developing the learning programs and training activities. There are four reasons for this: (1) to identify specific problem areas in the organization; (2) to identify specific learning deficiencies to serve as the bases of programs and activities; (3) to determine the bases of future learner evaluations; and (4) to determine the costs and benefits of the programs and activities in order to get organizational support.
PROGRAM DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, AND EVALUATION
At the heart of all learning programs and training activities is their design, a blueprint from which to construct all learning in the organization. Without a properly designed program, learning will not be consistent, nor will desired results become evident. HRD practitioners wise enough to develop the competencies and skills they need will design and develop effective programs and activities and will be able to evaluate outcomes accurately.
MARKETING OF HRD PROGRAMS
Many HRD programs are severely reduced during financially difficult periods. Often they are eliminated altogether. HRD practitioners should therefore develop a clear understanding of and appreciation for marketing. By doing so they can improve the overall image of the program, the field, and its practitioners and help position HRD as a serious and vital component of the organization's strategic future.
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Cost-benefit analysis is often used as a means of justification or evidence of impact. It provides upper management with information they understand and moves the evaluation of HRD effectiveness from qualitative to quantitative.
FACILITATION OF LEARNING
HRD practitioners need to develop teaching skills and an ability to facilitate learning in a variety of settings. They must also understand how adults learn and know how to evaluate learning and behavioral change.
What is an accident and why should it be investigated?
What is an accident and why should it be investigated?
The term "accident" can be defined as an unplanned event that interrupts the completion of an activity, and that may (or may not) include injury or property damage.
An incident usually refers to an unexpected event that did not cause injury or damage this time but had the potential. "Near miss" or "dangerous occurrence" are also terms for an event that could have caused harm but did not.
Reasons to investigate a workplace accident include:
• most importantly, to find out the cause of accidents and to prevent similar accidents in the future
• to fulfill any legal requirements
• to determine the cost of an accident
• to determine compliance with applicable safety regulations
• to process workers' compensation claims
Incidents that involve no injury or property damage should still be investigated to determine the hazards that should be corrected. The same principles apply to a quick inquiry of a minor incident and to the more formal investigation of a serious event.
Please note: The term incident is used in some situations and jurisdictions to cover both an "accident" and "incident". It is argued that the word "accident" implies that the event was related to fate or chance. When the root cause is determined, it is usually found that many events were predictable and could have been prevented if the right actions were taken -- making the event not one of fate or chance (thus, the word incident is used). For simplicity, we will use the term accident to mean all of the above events.
The information that follows is intended to be a general guide for supervisors or joint occupational health and safety committee members. When accidents are investigated, the emphasis should be concentrated on finding the root cause of the accident rather than the investigation procedure itself so you can prevent it from happening again. The purpose is to find facts that can lead to actions, not to find fault. Always look for deeper causes. Do not simply record the steps of the event.
Who should do the accident investigating?
Ideally, an investigation would be conducted by someone experienced in accident causation, experienced in investigative techniques, fully knowledgeable of the work processes, procedures, persons, and industrial relations environment of a particular situation.
Some jurisdictions provide guidance such as requiring that it must be conducted jointly, with both management and labour represented, or that the investigators must be knowledgeable about the work processes involved.
In most cases, the supervisor should help investigate the event. Other members of the team can include:
• employees with knowledge of the work
• safety officer
• health and safety committee
• union representative, if applicable
• employees with experience in investigations
• "outside" expert
• representative from local government
Should the immediate supervisor be on the team?
The advantage is that this person is likely to know most about the work and persons involved and the current conditions. Furthermore, the supervisor can usually take immediate remedial action. The counter argument is that there may be an attempt to gloss over the supervisors shortcomings in the accident. This situation should not arise if the accident is investigated by a team of people, and if the worker representative(s) and the members review all accident investigation reports thoroughly.
Why look for the "root cause"?
An investigator who believes that accidents are caused by unsafe conditions will likely try to uncover conditions as causes. On the other hand, one who believes they are caused by unsafe acts will attempt to find the human errors that are causes. Therefore, it is necessary to examine some underlying factors in a chain of events that ends in an accident.
The important point is that even in the most seemingly straightforward accidents, seldom, if ever, is there only a single cause. For example, an "investigation" which concludes that an accident was due to worker carelessness, and goes no further, fails to seek answers to several important questions such as:
• Was the worker distracted? If yes, why was the worker distracted?
• Was a safe work procedure being followed? If not, why not?
• Were safety devices in order? If not, why not?
• Was the worker trained? If not, why not?
An inquiry that answers these and related questions will probably reveal conditions that are more open to correction than attempts to prevent "carelessness".
What are the steps involved in investigating an accident?
The accident investigation process involves the following steps:
• Report the accident occurrence to a designated person within the organization
• Provide first aid and medical care to injured person(s) and prevent further injuries or damage
• Investigate the accident
• Identify the causes
• Report the findings
• Develop a plan for corrective action
• Implement the plan
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective action
• Make changes for continuous improvement
As little time as possible should be lost between the moment of an accident or near miss and the beginning of the investigation. In this way, one is most likely to be able to observe the conditions as they were at the time, prevent disturbance of evidence, and identify witnesses. The tools that members of the investigating team may need (pencil, paper, camera, film, camera flash, tape measure, etc.) should be immediately available so that no time is wasted.
What should be looked at as the cause of an accident?
Accident Causation Models
Many models of accident causation have been proposed, ranging from Heinrich's domino theory to the sophisticated Management Oversight and Risk Tree (MORT).
The simple model shown in Figure 1 attempts to illustrate that the causes of any accident can be grouped into five categories - task, material, environment, personnel, and management. When this model is used, possible causes in each category should be investigated. Each category is examined more closely below. Remember that these are sample questions only: no attempt has been made to develop a comprehensive checklist.
Figure 1: Accident Causation
Task
Here the actual work procedure being used at the time of the accident is explored. Members of the accident investigation team will look for answers to questions such as:
• Was a safe work procedure used?
• Had conditions changed to make the normal procedure unsafe?
• Were the appropriate tools and materials available?
• Were they used?
• Were safety devices working properly?
• Was lockout used when necessary?
For most of these questions, an important follow-up question is "If not, why not?"
Material
To seek out possible causes resulting from the equipment and materials used, investigators might ask:
• Was there an equipment failure?
• What caused it to fail?
• Was the machinery poorly designed?
• Were hazardous substances involved?
• Were they clearly identified?
• Was a less hazardous alternative substance possible and available?
• Was the raw material substandard in some way?
• Should personal protective equipment (PPE) have been used?
• Was the PPE used?
• Were users of PPE properly trained?
Again, each time the answer reveals an unsafe condition, the investigator must ask why this situation was allowed to exist.
Environment
The physical environment, and especially sudden changes to that environment, are factors that need to be identified. The situation at the time of the accident is what is important, not what the "usual" conditions were. For example, accident investigators may want to know:
• What were the weather conditions?
• Was poor housekeeping a problem?
• Was it too hot or too cold?
• Was noise a problem?
• Was there adequate light?
• Were toxic or hazardous gases, dusts, or fumes present?
Personnel
The physical and mental condition of those individuals directly involved in the event must be explored. The purpose for investigating the accident is not to establish blame against someone but the inquiry will not be complete unless personal characteristics are considered. Some factors will remain essentially constant while others may vary from day to day:
• Were workers experienced in the work being done?
• Had they been adequately trained?
• Can they physically do the work?
• What was the status of their health?
• Were they tired?
• Were they under stress (work or personal)?
Management
Management holds the legal responsibility for the safety of the workplace and therefore the role of supervisors and higher management and the role or presence of management systems must always be considered in an accident investigation. Failures of management systems are often found to be direct or indirect factors in accidents. Ask questions such as:
• Were safety rules communicated to and understood by all employees?
• Were written procedures and orientation available?
• Were they being enforced?
• Was there adequate supervision?
• Were workers trained to do the work?
• Had hazards been previously identified?
• Had procedures been developed to overcome them?
• Were unsafe conditions corrected?
• Was regular maintenance of equipment carried out?
• Were regular safety inspections carried out?
This model of accident investigations provides a guide for uncovering all possible causes and reduces the likelihood of looking at facts in isolation. Some investigators may prefer to place some of the sample questions in different categories; however, the categories are not important, as long as each pertinent question is asked. Obviously there is considerable overlap between categories; this reflects the situation in real life. Again it should be emphasized that the above sample questions do not make up a complete checklist, but are examples only.
How are the facts collected?
The steps in accident investigation are simple: the accident investigators gather information, analyze it, draw conclusions, and make recommendations. Although the procedures are straightforward, each step can have its pitfalls. As mentioned above, an open mind is necessary in accident investigation: preconceived notions may result in some wrong paths being followed while leaving some significant facts uncovered. All possible causes should be considered. Making notes of ideas as they occur is a good practice but conclusions should not be drawn until all the information is gathered.
Injured workers(s)
The most important immediate tasks--rescue operations, medical treatment of the injured, and prevention of further injuries--have priority and others must not interfere with these activities. When these matters are under control, the investigators can start their work.
Physical Evidence
Before attempting to gather information, examine the site for a quick overview, take steps to preserve evidence, and identify all witnesses. In some jurisdictions, an accident site must not be disturbed without prior approval from appropriate government officials such as the coroner, inspector, or police. Physical evidence is probably the most non-controversial information available. It is also subject to rapid change or obliteration; therefore, it should be the first to be recorded. Based on your knowledge of the work process, you may want to check items such as:
• positions of injured workers
• equipment being used
• materials or chemicals being used
• safety devices in use
• position of appropriate guards
• position of controls of machinery
• damage to equipment
• housekeeping of area
• weather conditions
• lighting levels
• noise levels
• time of day
You may want to take photographs before anything is moved, both of the general area and specific items. Later careful study of these may reveal conditions or observations missed previously. Sketches of the accident scene based on measurements taken may also help in subsequent analysis and will clarify any written reports. Broken equipment, debris, and samples of materials involved may be removed for further analysis by appropriate experts. Even if photographs are taken, written notes about the location of these items at the accident scene should be prepared.
Eyewitness Accounts
Although there may be occasions when you are unable to do so, every effort should be made to interview witnesses. In some situations witnesses may be your primary source of information because you may be called upon to investigate an accident without being able to examine the scene immediately after the event. Because witnesses may be under severe emotional stress or afraid to be completely open for fear of recrimination, interviewing witnesses is probably the hardest task facing an investigator.
Witnesses should be kept apart and interviewed as soon as possible after the accident. If witnesses have an opportunity to discuss the event among themselves, individual perceptions may be lost in the normal process of accepting a consensus view where doubt exists about the facts.
Witnesses should be interviewed alone, rather than in a group. You may decide to interview a witness at the scene of the accident where it is easier to establish the positions of each person involved and to obtain a description of the events. On the other hand, it may be preferable to carry out interviews in a quiet office where there will be fewer distractions. The decision may depend in part on the nature of the accident and the mental state of the witnesses.
Interviewing
Interviewing is an art that cannot be given justice in a brief document such as this, but a few do's and don'ts can be mentioned. The purpose of the interview is to establish an understanding with the witness and to obtain his or her own words describing the event:
DO...
• put the witness, who is probably upset, at ease
• emphasize the real reason for the investigation, to determine what happened and why
• let the witness talk, listen
• confirm that you have the statement correct
• try to sense any underlying feelings of the witness
• make short notes or ask someone else on the team to take them during the interview
• ask if it is okay to record the interview, if you are doing so
• close on a positive note
DO NOT...
• intimidate the witness
• interrupt
• prompt
• ask leading questions
• show your own emotions
• jump to conclusions
Ask open-ended questions that cannot be answered by simply "yes" or "no". The actual questions you ask the witness will naturally vary with each accident, but there are some general questions that should be asked each time:
• Where were you at the time of the accident?
• What were you doing at the time?
• What did you see, hear?
• What were the environmental conditions (weather, light, noise, etc.) at the time?
• What was (were) the injured worker(s) doing at the time?
• In your opinion, what caused the accident?
• How might similar accidents be prevented in the future?
If you were not at the scene at the time, asking questions is a straightforward approach to establishing what happened. Obviously, care must be taken to assess the credibility of any statements made in the interviews. Answers to a first few questions will generally show how well the witness could actually observe what happened.
Another technique sometimes used to determine the sequence of events is to re-enact or replay them as they happened. Obviously, great care must be taken so that further injury or damage does not occur. A witness (usually the injured worker) is asked to reenact in slow motion the actions that preceded the accident.
Background Information
A third, and often an overlooked source of information, can be found in documents such as technical data sheets, health and safety committee minutes, inspection reports, company policies, maintenance reports, past accident reports, formalized safe-work procedures, and training reports. Any pertinent information should be studied to see what might have happened, and what changes might be recommended to prevent recurrence of similar accidents.
What should I know when making the analysis and conclusions?
At this stage of the investigation most of the facts about what happened and how it happened should be known. This has taken considerable effort to accomplish but it represents only the first half of the objective. Now comes the key question--why did it happen? To prevent recurrences of similar accidents, the investigators must find all possible answers to this question.
You have kept an open mind to all possibilities and looked for all pertinent facts. There may still be gaps in your understanding of the sequence of events that resulted in the accident. You may need to reinterview some witnesses to fill these gaps in your knowledge.
• When your analysis is complete, write down a step-by-step account of what happened (your conclusions) working back from the moment of the accident, listing all possible causes at each step. This is not extra work: it is a draft for part of the final report. Each conclusion should be checked to see if:
• it is supported by evidence
• the evidence is direct (physical or documentary) or based on eyewitness accounts, or
• the evidence is based on assumption.
This list serves as a final check on discrepancies that should be explained or eliminated.
Why should recommendations be made?
The most important final step is to come up with a set of well-considered recommendations designed to prevent recurrences of similar accidents. Once you are knowledgeable about the work processes involved and the overall situation in your organization, it should not be too difficult to come up with realistic recommendations. Recommendations should:
• be specific
• be constructive
• get at root causes
• identify contributing factors
Resist the temptation to make only general recommendations to save time and effort.
For example, you have determined that a blind corner contributed to an accident. Rather than just recommending "eliminate blind corners" it would be better to suggest:
• install mirrors at the northwest corner of building X (specific to this accident)
• install mirrors at blind corners where required throughout the worksite (general)
Never make recommendations about disciplining a person or persons who may have been at fault. This would not only be counter to the real purpose of the investigation, but it would jeopardize the chances for a free flow of information in future accident investigations.
In the unlikely event that you have not been able to determine the causes of an accident with any certainty, you probably still have uncovered safety weaknesses in the operation. It is appropriate that recommendations be made to correct these deficiencies.
The Written Report
If your organization has a standard form that must be used, you will have little choice in the form that your written report is to be presented. Nevertheless, you should be aware of, and try to overcome, shortcomings such as:
• If a limited space is provided for an answer, the tendency will be to answer in that space despite recommendations to "use back of form if necessary."
• If a checklist of causes is included, possible causes not listed may be overlooked.
• Headings such as "unsafe condition" will usually elicit a single response even when more than one unsafe condition exists.
• Differentiating between "primary cause" and "contributing factors" can be misleading. All accident causes are important and warrant consideration for possible corrective action.
Your previously prepared draft of the sequence of events can now be used to describe what happened. Remember that readers of your report do not have the intimate knowledge of the accident that you have so include all pertinent detail. Photographs and diagrams may save many words of description. Identify clearly where evidence is based on certain facts, eyewitness accounts, or your assumptions.
If doubt exists about any particular part, say so. The reasons for your conclusions should be stated and followed by your recommendations. Weed out extra material that is not required for a full understanding of the accident and its causes such as photographs that are not relevant and parts of the investigation that led you nowhere. The measure of a good accident report is quality, not quantity.
Always communicate your findings with workers, supervisors and management. Present your information 'in context' so everyone understands how the accident occurred and the actions in place to prevent it from happening again.
What should be done if the investigation reveals "human error"?
A difficulty that has bothered many investigators is the idea that one does not want to lay blame. However, when a thorough worksite accident investigation reveals that some person or persons among management, supervisor, and the workers were apparently at fault, then this fact should be pointed out. The intention here is to remedy the situation, not to discipline an individual.
Failing to point out human failings that contributed to an accident will not only downgrade the quality of the investigation. Furthermore, it will also allow future accidents to happen from similar causes because they have not been addressed.
However never make recommendations about disciplining anyone who may be at fault. Any disciplinary steps should be done within the normal personnel procedures.
How should follow-up be handled?
Management is responsible for acting on the recommendations in the accident investigation report. The health and safety committee, if you have one, can monitor the progress of these actions.
Follow-up actions include:
• Respond to the recommendations in the report by explaining what can and cannot be done (and why or why not).
• Develop a timetable for corrective actions.
• Monitor that the scheduled actions have been completed.
• Check the condition of injured worker(s).
• Inform and train other workers at risk.
• Re-orient worker(s) on their return to work.
The term "accident" can be defined as an unplanned event that interrupts the completion of an activity, and that may (or may not) include injury or property damage.
An incident usually refers to an unexpected event that did not cause injury or damage this time but had the potential. "Near miss" or "dangerous occurrence" are also terms for an event that could have caused harm but did not.
Reasons to investigate a workplace accident include:
• most importantly, to find out the cause of accidents and to prevent similar accidents in the future
• to fulfill any legal requirements
• to determine the cost of an accident
• to determine compliance with applicable safety regulations
• to process workers' compensation claims
Incidents that involve no injury or property damage should still be investigated to determine the hazards that should be corrected. The same principles apply to a quick inquiry of a minor incident and to the more formal investigation of a serious event.
Please note: The term incident is used in some situations and jurisdictions to cover both an "accident" and "incident". It is argued that the word "accident" implies that the event was related to fate or chance. When the root cause is determined, it is usually found that many events were predictable and could have been prevented if the right actions were taken -- making the event not one of fate or chance (thus, the word incident is used). For simplicity, we will use the term accident to mean all of the above events.
The information that follows is intended to be a general guide for supervisors or joint occupational health and safety committee members. When accidents are investigated, the emphasis should be concentrated on finding the root cause of the accident rather than the investigation procedure itself so you can prevent it from happening again. The purpose is to find facts that can lead to actions, not to find fault. Always look for deeper causes. Do not simply record the steps of the event.
Who should do the accident investigating?
Ideally, an investigation would be conducted by someone experienced in accident causation, experienced in investigative techniques, fully knowledgeable of the work processes, procedures, persons, and industrial relations environment of a particular situation.
Some jurisdictions provide guidance such as requiring that it must be conducted jointly, with both management and labour represented, or that the investigators must be knowledgeable about the work processes involved.
In most cases, the supervisor should help investigate the event. Other members of the team can include:
• employees with knowledge of the work
• safety officer
• health and safety committee
• union representative, if applicable
• employees with experience in investigations
• "outside" expert
• representative from local government
Should the immediate supervisor be on the team?
The advantage is that this person is likely to know most about the work and persons involved and the current conditions. Furthermore, the supervisor can usually take immediate remedial action. The counter argument is that there may be an attempt to gloss over the supervisors shortcomings in the accident. This situation should not arise if the accident is investigated by a team of people, and if the worker representative(s) and the members review all accident investigation reports thoroughly.
Why look for the "root cause"?
An investigator who believes that accidents are caused by unsafe conditions will likely try to uncover conditions as causes. On the other hand, one who believes they are caused by unsafe acts will attempt to find the human errors that are causes. Therefore, it is necessary to examine some underlying factors in a chain of events that ends in an accident.
The important point is that even in the most seemingly straightforward accidents, seldom, if ever, is there only a single cause. For example, an "investigation" which concludes that an accident was due to worker carelessness, and goes no further, fails to seek answers to several important questions such as:
• Was the worker distracted? If yes, why was the worker distracted?
• Was a safe work procedure being followed? If not, why not?
• Were safety devices in order? If not, why not?
• Was the worker trained? If not, why not?
An inquiry that answers these and related questions will probably reveal conditions that are more open to correction than attempts to prevent "carelessness".
What are the steps involved in investigating an accident?
The accident investigation process involves the following steps:
• Report the accident occurrence to a designated person within the organization
• Provide first aid and medical care to injured person(s) and prevent further injuries or damage
• Investigate the accident
• Identify the causes
• Report the findings
• Develop a plan for corrective action
• Implement the plan
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective action
• Make changes for continuous improvement
As little time as possible should be lost between the moment of an accident or near miss and the beginning of the investigation. In this way, one is most likely to be able to observe the conditions as they were at the time, prevent disturbance of evidence, and identify witnesses. The tools that members of the investigating team may need (pencil, paper, camera, film, camera flash, tape measure, etc.) should be immediately available so that no time is wasted.
What should be looked at as the cause of an accident?
Accident Causation Models
Many models of accident causation have been proposed, ranging from Heinrich's domino theory to the sophisticated Management Oversight and Risk Tree (MORT).
The simple model shown in Figure 1 attempts to illustrate that the causes of any accident can be grouped into five categories - task, material, environment, personnel, and management. When this model is used, possible causes in each category should be investigated. Each category is examined more closely below. Remember that these are sample questions only: no attempt has been made to develop a comprehensive checklist.
Figure 1: Accident Causation
Task
Here the actual work procedure being used at the time of the accident is explored. Members of the accident investigation team will look for answers to questions such as:
• Was a safe work procedure used?
• Had conditions changed to make the normal procedure unsafe?
• Were the appropriate tools and materials available?
• Were they used?
• Were safety devices working properly?
• Was lockout used when necessary?
For most of these questions, an important follow-up question is "If not, why not?"
Material
To seek out possible causes resulting from the equipment and materials used, investigators might ask:
• Was there an equipment failure?
• What caused it to fail?
• Was the machinery poorly designed?
• Were hazardous substances involved?
• Were they clearly identified?
• Was a less hazardous alternative substance possible and available?
• Was the raw material substandard in some way?
• Should personal protective equipment (PPE) have been used?
• Was the PPE used?
• Were users of PPE properly trained?
Again, each time the answer reveals an unsafe condition, the investigator must ask why this situation was allowed to exist.
Environment
The physical environment, and especially sudden changes to that environment, are factors that need to be identified. The situation at the time of the accident is what is important, not what the "usual" conditions were. For example, accident investigators may want to know:
• What were the weather conditions?
• Was poor housekeeping a problem?
• Was it too hot or too cold?
• Was noise a problem?
• Was there adequate light?
• Were toxic or hazardous gases, dusts, or fumes present?
Personnel
The physical and mental condition of those individuals directly involved in the event must be explored. The purpose for investigating the accident is not to establish blame against someone but the inquiry will not be complete unless personal characteristics are considered. Some factors will remain essentially constant while others may vary from day to day:
• Were workers experienced in the work being done?
• Had they been adequately trained?
• Can they physically do the work?
• What was the status of their health?
• Were they tired?
• Were they under stress (work or personal)?
Management
Management holds the legal responsibility for the safety of the workplace and therefore the role of supervisors and higher management and the role or presence of management systems must always be considered in an accident investigation. Failures of management systems are often found to be direct or indirect factors in accidents. Ask questions such as:
• Were safety rules communicated to and understood by all employees?
• Were written procedures and orientation available?
• Were they being enforced?
• Was there adequate supervision?
• Were workers trained to do the work?
• Had hazards been previously identified?
• Had procedures been developed to overcome them?
• Were unsafe conditions corrected?
• Was regular maintenance of equipment carried out?
• Were regular safety inspections carried out?
This model of accident investigations provides a guide for uncovering all possible causes and reduces the likelihood of looking at facts in isolation. Some investigators may prefer to place some of the sample questions in different categories; however, the categories are not important, as long as each pertinent question is asked. Obviously there is considerable overlap between categories; this reflects the situation in real life. Again it should be emphasized that the above sample questions do not make up a complete checklist, but are examples only.
How are the facts collected?
The steps in accident investigation are simple: the accident investigators gather information, analyze it, draw conclusions, and make recommendations. Although the procedures are straightforward, each step can have its pitfalls. As mentioned above, an open mind is necessary in accident investigation: preconceived notions may result in some wrong paths being followed while leaving some significant facts uncovered. All possible causes should be considered. Making notes of ideas as they occur is a good practice but conclusions should not be drawn until all the information is gathered.
Injured workers(s)
The most important immediate tasks--rescue operations, medical treatment of the injured, and prevention of further injuries--have priority and others must not interfere with these activities. When these matters are under control, the investigators can start their work.
Physical Evidence
Before attempting to gather information, examine the site for a quick overview, take steps to preserve evidence, and identify all witnesses. In some jurisdictions, an accident site must not be disturbed without prior approval from appropriate government officials such as the coroner, inspector, or police. Physical evidence is probably the most non-controversial information available. It is also subject to rapid change or obliteration; therefore, it should be the first to be recorded. Based on your knowledge of the work process, you may want to check items such as:
• positions of injured workers
• equipment being used
• materials or chemicals being used
• safety devices in use
• position of appropriate guards
• position of controls of machinery
• damage to equipment
• housekeeping of area
• weather conditions
• lighting levels
• noise levels
• time of day
You may want to take photographs before anything is moved, both of the general area and specific items. Later careful study of these may reveal conditions or observations missed previously. Sketches of the accident scene based on measurements taken may also help in subsequent analysis and will clarify any written reports. Broken equipment, debris, and samples of materials involved may be removed for further analysis by appropriate experts. Even if photographs are taken, written notes about the location of these items at the accident scene should be prepared.
Eyewitness Accounts
Although there may be occasions when you are unable to do so, every effort should be made to interview witnesses. In some situations witnesses may be your primary source of information because you may be called upon to investigate an accident without being able to examine the scene immediately after the event. Because witnesses may be under severe emotional stress or afraid to be completely open for fear of recrimination, interviewing witnesses is probably the hardest task facing an investigator.
Witnesses should be kept apart and interviewed as soon as possible after the accident. If witnesses have an opportunity to discuss the event among themselves, individual perceptions may be lost in the normal process of accepting a consensus view where doubt exists about the facts.
Witnesses should be interviewed alone, rather than in a group. You may decide to interview a witness at the scene of the accident where it is easier to establish the positions of each person involved and to obtain a description of the events. On the other hand, it may be preferable to carry out interviews in a quiet office where there will be fewer distractions. The decision may depend in part on the nature of the accident and the mental state of the witnesses.
Interviewing
Interviewing is an art that cannot be given justice in a brief document such as this, but a few do's and don'ts can be mentioned. The purpose of the interview is to establish an understanding with the witness and to obtain his or her own words describing the event:
DO...
• put the witness, who is probably upset, at ease
• emphasize the real reason for the investigation, to determine what happened and why
• let the witness talk, listen
• confirm that you have the statement correct
• try to sense any underlying feelings of the witness
• make short notes or ask someone else on the team to take them during the interview
• ask if it is okay to record the interview, if you are doing so
• close on a positive note
DO NOT...
• intimidate the witness
• interrupt
• prompt
• ask leading questions
• show your own emotions
• jump to conclusions
Ask open-ended questions that cannot be answered by simply "yes" or "no". The actual questions you ask the witness will naturally vary with each accident, but there are some general questions that should be asked each time:
• Where were you at the time of the accident?
• What were you doing at the time?
• What did you see, hear?
• What were the environmental conditions (weather, light, noise, etc.) at the time?
• What was (were) the injured worker(s) doing at the time?
• In your opinion, what caused the accident?
• How might similar accidents be prevented in the future?
If you were not at the scene at the time, asking questions is a straightforward approach to establishing what happened. Obviously, care must be taken to assess the credibility of any statements made in the interviews. Answers to a first few questions will generally show how well the witness could actually observe what happened.
Another technique sometimes used to determine the sequence of events is to re-enact or replay them as they happened. Obviously, great care must be taken so that further injury or damage does not occur. A witness (usually the injured worker) is asked to reenact in slow motion the actions that preceded the accident.
Background Information
A third, and often an overlooked source of information, can be found in documents such as technical data sheets, health and safety committee minutes, inspection reports, company policies, maintenance reports, past accident reports, formalized safe-work procedures, and training reports. Any pertinent information should be studied to see what might have happened, and what changes might be recommended to prevent recurrence of similar accidents.
What should I know when making the analysis and conclusions?
At this stage of the investigation most of the facts about what happened and how it happened should be known. This has taken considerable effort to accomplish but it represents only the first half of the objective. Now comes the key question--why did it happen? To prevent recurrences of similar accidents, the investigators must find all possible answers to this question.
You have kept an open mind to all possibilities and looked for all pertinent facts. There may still be gaps in your understanding of the sequence of events that resulted in the accident. You may need to reinterview some witnesses to fill these gaps in your knowledge.
• When your analysis is complete, write down a step-by-step account of what happened (your conclusions) working back from the moment of the accident, listing all possible causes at each step. This is not extra work: it is a draft for part of the final report. Each conclusion should be checked to see if:
• it is supported by evidence
• the evidence is direct (physical or documentary) or based on eyewitness accounts, or
• the evidence is based on assumption.
This list serves as a final check on discrepancies that should be explained or eliminated.
Why should recommendations be made?
The most important final step is to come up with a set of well-considered recommendations designed to prevent recurrences of similar accidents. Once you are knowledgeable about the work processes involved and the overall situation in your organization, it should not be too difficult to come up with realistic recommendations. Recommendations should:
• be specific
• be constructive
• get at root causes
• identify contributing factors
Resist the temptation to make only general recommendations to save time and effort.
For example, you have determined that a blind corner contributed to an accident. Rather than just recommending "eliminate blind corners" it would be better to suggest:
• install mirrors at the northwest corner of building X (specific to this accident)
• install mirrors at blind corners where required throughout the worksite (general)
Never make recommendations about disciplining a person or persons who may have been at fault. This would not only be counter to the real purpose of the investigation, but it would jeopardize the chances for a free flow of information in future accident investigations.
In the unlikely event that you have not been able to determine the causes of an accident with any certainty, you probably still have uncovered safety weaknesses in the operation. It is appropriate that recommendations be made to correct these deficiencies.
The Written Report
If your organization has a standard form that must be used, you will have little choice in the form that your written report is to be presented. Nevertheless, you should be aware of, and try to overcome, shortcomings such as:
• If a limited space is provided for an answer, the tendency will be to answer in that space despite recommendations to "use back of form if necessary."
• If a checklist of causes is included, possible causes not listed may be overlooked.
• Headings such as "unsafe condition" will usually elicit a single response even when more than one unsafe condition exists.
• Differentiating between "primary cause" and "contributing factors" can be misleading. All accident causes are important and warrant consideration for possible corrective action.
Your previously prepared draft of the sequence of events can now be used to describe what happened. Remember that readers of your report do not have the intimate knowledge of the accident that you have so include all pertinent detail. Photographs and diagrams may save many words of description. Identify clearly where evidence is based on certain facts, eyewitness accounts, or your assumptions.
If doubt exists about any particular part, say so. The reasons for your conclusions should be stated and followed by your recommendations. Weed out extra material that is not required for a full understanding of the accident and its causes such as photographs that are not relevant and parts of the investigation that led you nowhere. The measure of a good accident report is quality, not quantity.
Always communicate your findings with workers, supervisors and management. Present your information 'in context' so everyone understands how the accident occurred and the actions in place to prevent it from happening again.
What should be done if the investigation reveals "human error"?
A difficulty that has bothered many investigators is the idea that one does not want to lay blame. However, when a thorough worksite accident investigation reveals that some person or persons among management, supervisor, and the workers were apparently at fault, then this fact should be pointed out. The intention here is to remedy the situation, not to discipline an individual.
Failing to point out human failings that contributed to an accident will not only downgrade the quality of the investigation. Furthermore, it will also allow future accidents to happen from similar causes because they have not been addressed.
However never make recommendations about disciplining anyone who may be at fault. Any disciplinary steps should be done within the normal personnel procedures.
How should follow-up be handled?
Management is responsible for acting on the recommendations in the accident investigation report. The health and safety committee, if you have one, can monitor the progress of these actions.
Follow-up actions include:
• Respond to the recommendations in the report by explaining what can and cannot be done (and why or why not).
• Develop a timetable for corrective actions.
• Monitor that the scheduled actions have been completed.
• Check the condition of injured worker(s).
• Inform and train other workers at risk.
• Re-orient worker(s) on their return to work.
What are the key elements in the disciplinary process?
What are the key elements in the disciplinary process?
Discipline is the action taken by management to encourage compliance with the organization standards. It is a process to correct and mould employees for better performance. There are two types of discipline:
1. Preventive Discipline: This action is taken to encourage employees to follow standards and rules so that indiscipline is prevented. The personnel Department plays a major role in preventive discipline. They communicate the rules to the employees, conduct trainings and even counsel employees if necessary.
2. Corrective Discipline: This action is taken when there is non-compliance with the rules. Typically corrective discipline is a penalty like warning or suspension.
Discipline is one of the most challenging areas in the Personnel management function. In dealing with difficult employees, operating managers must diagnose both internal and external environmental factors contributing to the indiscipline, prescribe and implement appropriate remedial actions and evaluate the effectiveness of their decisions.
Disciplinary Alternatives
When deciding what disciplinary action to take, we need to keep in mind that discipline is supposed to be constructive. The goal is to guide the employee to improve performance or correct inappropriate behavior, not to punish the employee. As a general rule, the action should be just enough to get the employee's attention. However, it maybe needs to have to take progressively more serious actions if there is no improvement or if repeat occurrences follow. We need not take each of these actions, but you will normally take more than one of them. The alternatives are:
Oral Warning:
• Set a time and place to ensure privacy.
• Make notes about what you want to say in advance.
• Remember that the employee may have a right to representation.
• State clearly that you are issuing an oral warning.
• Be specific in describing the unacceptable performance or behavior.
• Remind the employee of the acceptable standards or rules. If they are available in writing, provide them to the employee.
• State the consequences of failure to demonstrate immediate and sustained improvement: Further disciplinary action may be the result.
• Note the oral warning on your calendar and key elements of discussion
Written Warning:
If you gave an oral warning and the problem performance or behavior persists, a written warning may be effective. You may decide to use this disciplinary action more than once, to get the employee's attention. Be careful, however, not to get stuck issuing repetitive letters of warning that fail to influence the employee's behavior or performance. .
• State clearly at the outset of the letter that it is a written warning, and cite the appropriate personnel policy or contract provision.
• Describe the performance problem(s) or work rule violation(s) in very specific detail and attach documents which support your conclusions.
• Outline previous steps taken to acquaint the employee with the issue (coaching sessions, performance appraisals, and previous disciplinary actions) and attach copies of the documents.
• Describe the impact of the problem (safety issues, need to reassign work).
• Note the employee's explanation (as revealed during your investigation) or that the employee declined to offer one. If it was unacceptable, explain why.
• Reiterate your expectations regarding behavior and/or performance.
• Note that if the employee doesn't demonstrate immediate and sustained improvement, the consequence will be further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal.
• Refer the employee to the appropriate policy or contract provision for appeal rights.
• Deliver the warning letter to the employee and place it in the employee's departmental personnel file using appropriate delivery procedures such as "Proof of Service."
•
Suspension without Pay:
This is normally the next stage in progressive discipline after written warning(s).Suspension typically prevents work for a number of working days, as specified in the letter, and pay is docked accordingly.
Length of a suspension without pay will be influenced by policy or contract requirements.
The letter states that it is a suspension without pay, the appropriate policy or contract provision, and the number of days the employee will be suspended. It also (as with a letter of warning) describes the problem, previous corrective measures, impact of the problem, your expectations, consequences of failure to improve, and the employee's appeal rights.
Depending upon the personnel program the employee belongs to, you may be required to issue a letter of intent to suspend, which provides the employee with the right to appeal your intended action to the next higher management level before the action is implemented.
Reduction of Pay within a Class:
This alternative is normally used when you do not wish to remove the employee from the work site, but serious discipline is appropriate. It is most appropriately used in lieu of suspension without pay, in cases of chronic absenteeism or tardiness.
The reduction of pay is for a specific period of time, related to the seriousness of the performance discrepancy or work rule violation, and noted in the letter.
The disciplinary letter will incorporate the same elements included in a suspension
Demotion to a Lower Classification:
This action involves movement of an employee to a lower level position, and may be temporary or permanent.
Demotion is most often appropriate in cases of inadequate performance of responsibilities at a particular level, rather than violation of work rules. It should be based upon a reasonable expectation that the employee will perform successfully in the lower classified position. For example, did the employee previously hold a similar position, and did they perform satisfactorily?
Dismissal:
This alternative is normally selected after performance counseling and progressive discipline have failed to get the employee's attention to the problem.
In extreme cases, such as job abandonment, theft, or an act that endangers others, the offense may be so grave that we forgo progressive discipline.
In carrying out disciplinary action be sure to:
• Maintain a professional manner by keeping the disciplinary process confidential between you and the employee
• Make a careful diagnosis of the problem to determine whether disciplinary action is appropriate
• Provide specific examples of performance discrepancies or work rule violations so the employee fully understands what needs correction
• Allow the employee ample opportunity to explain so that you have all the facts
• Make sure discipline is the appropriate tool. Would coaching or performance appraisal be sufficient to get the employee's attention?
• When you take disciplinary action, make sure the punishment fits the crime
• Help the employee improve performance by providing specific recommendations and requirements
• Communicate clearly so the employee understands the consequences if performance or conduct does not improve
Approaches to Discipline:
Hot Stove Rule: In this approach to discipline, the reaction to the disciplinary action has the same effect as to how a person reacts when he touches a hot stove. The consequences are:
(a) Warning: Before any behavior has taken place the consequences of the undesirable behaviour are communicated to the employee.
(b) Immediate Burn: If any disciplinary action has to be taken, then it has to be taken immediately after the undesirable act has taken place. The employee must be able to see the link between the act and the punishment.
(c) Consistency: The same action is taken against any person performing the undesirable act – no discrimination.
(d) Impersonality: The disciplinary action is not directed towards a person, its meant to eliminate the undesirable behaviour.
Progressive Discipline
The progressive discipline approach is administered to give an employee a chance to take corrective action before more serious penalties are imposed. Therefore the severity of penalty is increased every time the offense is repeated. The objective is to create and maintain a productive responsive workforce.
Positive Discipline:
The disadvantages of Hot-stove and Progressive discipline are that they focus on past behaviour. Some employees who are disciplined in a punitive way may not remain committed to their job or feel good about the company. Positive discipline is future oriented and is included by working with employees to solve problems so that indiscipline does not occur in the first place.
Discipline is the action taken by management to encourage compliance with the organization standards. It is a process to correct and mould employees for better performance. There are two types of discipline:
1. Preventive Discipline: This action is taken to encourage employees to follow standards and rules so that indiscipline is prevented. The personnel Department plays a major role in preventive discipline. They communicate the rules to the employees, conduct trainings and even counsel employees if necessary.
2. Corrective Discipline: This action is taken when there is non-compliance with the rules. Typically corrective discipline is a penalty like warning or suspension.
Discipline is one of the most challenging areas in the Personnel management function. In dealing with difficult employees, operating managers must diagnose both internal and external environmental factors contributing to the indiscipline, prescribe and implement appropriate remedial actions and evaluate the effectiveness of their decisions.
Disciplinary Alternatives
When deciding what disciplinary action to take, we need to keep in mind that discipline is supposed to be constructive. The goal is to guide the employee to improve performance or correct inappropriate behavior, not to punish the employee. As a general rule, the action should be just enough to get the employee's attention. However, it maybe needs to have to take progressively more serious actions if there is no improvement or if repeat occurrences follow. We need not take each of these actions, but you will normally take more than one of them. The alternatives are:
Oral Warning:
• Set a time and place to ensure privacy.
• Make notes about what you want to say in advance.
• Remember that the employee may have a right to representation.
• State clearly that you are issuing an oral warning.
• Be specific in describing the unacceptable performance or behavior.
• Remind the employee of the acceptable standards or rules. If they are available in writing, provide them to the employee.
• State the consequences of failure to demonstrate immediate and sustained improvement: Further disciplinary action may be the result.
• Note the oral warning on your calendar and key elements of discussion
Written Warning:
If you gave an oral warning and the problem performance or behavior persists, a written warning may be effective. You may decide to use this disciplinary action more than once, to get the employee's attention. Be careful, however, not to get stuck issuing repetitive letters of warning that fail to influence the employee's behavior or performance. .
• State clearly at the outset of the letter that it is a written warning, and cite the appropriate personnel policy or contract provision.
• Describe the performance problem(s) or work rule violation(s) in very specific detail and attach documents which support your conclusions.
• Outline previous steps taken to acquaint the employee with the issue (coaching sessions, performance appraisals, and previous disciplinary actions) and attach copies of the documents.
• Describe the impact of the problem (safety issues, need to reassign work).
• Note the employee's explanation (as revealed during your investigation) or that the employee declined to offer one. If it was unacceptable, explain why.
• Reiterate your expectations regarding behavior and/or performance.
• Note that if the employee doesn't demonstrate immediate and sustained improvement, the consequence will be further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal.
• Refer the employee to the appropriate policy or contract provision for appeal rights.
• Deliver the warning letter to the employee and place it in the employee's departmental personnel file using appropriate delivery procedures such as "Proof of Service."
•
Suspension without Pay:
This is normally the next stage in progressive discipline after written warning(s).Suspension typically prevents work for a number of working days, as specified in the letter, and pay is docked accordingly.
Length of a suspension without pay will be influenced by policy or contract requirements.
The letter states that it is a suspension without pay, the appropriate policy or contract provision, and the number of days the employee will be suspended. It also (as with a letter of warning) describes the problem, previous corrective measures, impact of the problem, your expectations, consequences of failure to improve, and the employee's appeal rights.
Depending upon the personnel program the employee belongs to, you may be required to issue a letter of intent to suspend, which provides the employee with the right to appeal your intended action to the next higher management level before the action is implemented.
Reduction of Pay within a Class:
This alternative is normally used when you do not wish to remove the employee from the work site, but serious discipline is appropriate. It is most appropriately used in lieu of suspension without pay, in cases of chronic absenteeism or tardiness.
The reduction of pay is for a specific period of time, related to the seriousness of the performance discrepancy or work rule violation, and noted in the letter.
The disciplinary letter will incorporate the same elements included in a suspension
Demotion to a Lower Classification:
This action involves movement of an employee to a lower level position, and may be temporary or permanent.
Demotion is most often appropriate in cases of inadequate performance of responsibilities at a particular level, rather than violation of work rules. It should be based upon a reasonable expectation that the employee will perform successfully in the lower classified position. For example, did the employee previously hold a similar position, and did they perform satisfactorily?
Dismissal:
This alternative is normally selected after performance counseling and progressive discipline have failed to get the employee's attention to the problem.
In extreme cases, such as job abandonment, theft, or an act that endangers others, the offense may be so grave that we forgo progressive discipline.
In carrying out disciplinary action be sure to:
• Maintain a professional manner by keeping the disciplinary process confidential between you and the employee
• Make a careful diagnosis of the problem to determine whether disciplinary action is appropriate
• Provide specific examples of performance discrepancies or work rule violations so the employee fully understands what needs correction
• Allow the employee ample opportunity to explain so that you have all the facts
• Make sure discipline is the appropriate tool. Would coaching or performance appraisal be sufficient to get the employee's attention?
• When you take disciplinary action, make sure the punishment fits the crime
• Help the employee improve performance by providing specific recommendations and requirements
• Communicate clearly so the employee understands the consequences if performance or conduct does not improve
Approaches to Discipline:
Hot Stove Rule: In this approach to discipline, the reaction to the disciplinary action has the same effect as to how a person reacts when he touches a hot stove. The consequences are:
(a) Warning: Before any behavior has taken place the consequences of the undesirable behaviour are communicated to the employee.
(b) Immediate Burn: If any disciplinary action has to be taken, then it has to be taken immediately after the undesirable act has taken place. The employee must be able to see the link between the act and the punishment.
(c) Consistency: The same action is taken against any person performing the undesirable act – no discrimination.
(d) Impersonality: The disciplinary action is not directed towards a person, its meant to eliminate the undesirable behaviour.
Progressive Discipline
The progressive discipline approach is administered to give an employee a chance to take corrective action before more serious penalties are imposed. Therefore the severity of penalty is increased every time the offense is repeated. The objective is to create and maintain a productive responsive workforce.
Positive Discipline:
The disadvantages of Hot-stove and Progressive discipline are that they focus on past behaviour. Some employees who are disciplined in a punitive way may not remain committed to their job or feel good about the company. Positive discipline is future oriented and is included by working with employees to solve problems so that indiscipline does not occur in the first place.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Welcome to Human Resource Function.This platform will be used to share best HR practices, new challenges for HR persons, announcing career opportunities, Discussing professional problems, sharing your achievements regarding HR with the help of professional people. Or, make the policies & Procedures, Standard requirements, Management and practices needed to carry out the "people" or human resourceaspects of a management position, including recruiting, screening,training, rewarding, and appraising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
